Middle East Peace Process

Lord Dykes: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	When they next expect to participate in the Middle East peace process road map negotiations following the general election in Israel.

Lord Triesman: My Lords, we look forward to working with both the Israeli Government and the Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas, to move the peace process forward. We will continue to work with the international community to ensure that a just and lasting peace in the region is achieved.

Lord Dykes: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. Can we look on the bright side in an otherwise grim situation right now? At least there has been unusual restraint on the Israeli side, despite the bomb outrage in Tel Aviv. The Hamas-dominated Government have now had a truce for more than a year; there has been no violence coming from them directly. There are even rumours in Brussels and elsewhere—including Saudi Arabia—that there will possibly be behind-the-scenes pre-negotiations leading to incipient negotiations later, which may start soon between the various parties. Will the Government now seize the opportunity energetically to use the EU portion of the quartet to press for, simultaneously, Hamas recognition of the state of Israel's existence and a beginning to an Israeli withdrawal of its military from the 39-year occupation of the West Bank?

Lord Triesman: My Lords, it is incumbent on all members of the quartet, including the EU element, to take every opportunity that presents itself to move the road map process further along. It is not always easy to know exactly when the opportunities will occur, but we must be alert to them. We acknowledge the legitimacy of the election of the Hamas representatives to the Palestinian Authority, but it is also important to recognise the responsibilities that come with that; namely, to renounce violence and to recognise Israel and all previous agreements that have been made, including the road map. That is not an encumbrance: that is the process on which peace will rely.

Lord Wright of Richmond: My Lords, I deeply deplore the recent deaths caused by violence on both sides, including those resulting from the suicide bombing in Tel Aviv, but does the Minister accept that it is nevertheless unwise and unproductive for the quartet not to maintain relations with the Palestinian Authority's democratically elected Ministers? Can he give the House an assurance that Her Majesty's Government will similarly maintain contact at whatever level with the president of the Palestinian Authority and his Ministers?

Lord Triesman: My Lords, I give the assurance that we will maintain contact with the president of the Palestinian Authority, but I am afraid that I cannot give the assurance sought by the noble Lord on the maintenance of contact with Ministers. I have made the point that we will look for every opportunity to move forward, but we are sensibly working in the closest liaison in the quartet to achieve a full range of international pressure for two objectives: first, the renunciation of violence, the recognition of the state and, as I have said, commitments to past agreements on the one side; and secondly, on the Israeli side, living within legal borders and not making illegal incursions into Palestinian territory.

Lord Clarke of Hampstead: My Lords, will my noble friend join me in congratulating the Israeli Government on the tremendous reserve that they have shown in the face of this latest outrage and the way in which they have conducted themselves? Anyone sitting in the House or indeed anywhere else in the world, thinking that their loved ones could be blown to kingdom come by a suicide bomber, will know that that must have taken a superhuman effort on the part of the newly elected Government. Does my noble friend agree that talks taking place with any body at any level should make it absolutely clear that murdering innocent people will never help the long-term peace process in Israel?

Lord Triesman: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend and simply add my sentiments to those that have been expressed by my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary in deploring what he has described as the,
	"senseless and totally unjustified terrorist attack",
	which led to more unnecessary deaths. In making sure that we move towards a viable peace process, the international community through the quartet has made it clear that there must be a cessation of violence on all sides. The Russian Foreign Minister has made the point just as clearly as any other member of the quartet, and rightly so. The obligations on both sides, which I have described briefly already, are transparent: peace will not come if people continue to commit acts of violence in retribution, and peace will not come if there are illegal land seizures.

Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, what are the personal relationships on our side with the elected leaders of the Hamas group? It is important that they realise their importance and what they can do for peace. Without personal contact there is not much hope.

Lord Triesman: My Lords, in the process leading up to the elections in both Palestine and Israel there were contacts, particularly with the elected mayors of some areas who were at least linked with Hamas—the exact nature of the relationship is not so clear to me—on the basis that the people involved had specifically renounced peace and people felt that there was a viable way of proceeding with them. I now say that there is a simple request from the international community that there should be a renunciation of violence. People cannot take part in a democratic process and one that is dictated by the gun. We have argued that for parts of the United Kingdom; we certainly cannot adopt a different standard for another country.

Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, I just want to add to the Minister's point that merely getting elected does not make you a democrat. That is very true and an important lesson for us all to remember.
	Could the Minister also bring us up to date on the Palestinian Authority's cash position? Newspaper reports say that it is running out of all cash. Iran has offered a modest-sized loan or, indeed, a grant. Some of the emirates and other Arab states have produced some money. The United States is withholding money. What exactly will we be doing in the coming weeks?

Lord Triesman: My Lords, I am not in a position to comment on the sourcing of funds from other countries throughout the Middle East, although I have, of course, read the reports, as has the noble Lord, Lord Howell. In our case we have sustained the aid programme and made it clear that there is no intention of punishing or making life more debilitating for the Palestinian people by withholding these sums, which are going not to the authority but through the elected president, from the aid programmes to which we remain committed.

Prisons: HM Chief Inspector's Annual Report

Lord Quirk: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What steps they will take to address the concerns expressed in the latest annual report of H M Chief Inspector of Prisons.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, we hugely value the independent inspection of prisons. The report raises a number of broad issues which we are taking into account in the development of the National Offender Management Service. The Government have accepted the great majority of the recommendations of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector, Anne Owers, and are implementing them. For example, the number of prisons failing Adult Learning Inspectorate inspections has fallen, from 78 per cent in 2002–03 to 31 per cent between October 2005 and February 2006.

Lord Quirk: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her response, but as regards education and training, the Chief Inspector reported at page 30 that,
	"over half the provision in prisons was inadequate".
	Moreover, given that the time spent on purposeful activity is an important if imperfect guide and measure, is it not a matter of grave concern that, as stated on page 29, for a large proportion of the prisons inspected,
	"the figures recorded seriously misrepresented outcomes"?
	Is this not a case of inadequate provision plus cover-up?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I disagree with that as an accurate assessment. As the noble Lord says, the Adult Learning Inspectorate annual reports show that inadequacy rates in prisons have fallen year on year since the inspection of education in prisons formally began, which is more recently than most other post-16 sectors. We have therefore made positive improvements. We have inspected that issue—78 per cent of prisons failed the inspection in 2002–03; 61 per cent failed in 2003–04; and 55 per cent in 2004–05. We are making steady and trenchant improvements, but is that enough? No, and that is why we are working harder to make the improvements that we all aspire to see.

Lord Acton: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that Shrewsbury and Standford Hill prisons have introduced the Shannon Trust's Toe by Toe method of having educated prisoners teaching illiterate prisoners to read? Is the Minister aware that the Chief Inspector of Prisons, in her annual report, strongly supported those efforts? Will the Government encourage the use of Toe by Toe throughout the prison system?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend about the benefit of the work done by the Shannon Trust's Toe by Toe mentors. We are well aware of their good work, and the scheme received positive mention in the recent Green Paper Reducing Re-offending. We believe that prison governors need a degree of flexibility, but I am sure that my noble friend will be pleased to know that the Department for Education and Skills' Skills for Life strategy unit has developed a Toe by Toe information pack to support the Toe by Toe reading scheme that will be available in the summer.

The Lord Bishop of Worcester: My Lords, does the Minister agree that in her own and the Government's strong commitment to reducing reoffending and to rehabilitation, the existence of a report produced by a highly competent and astute observer who is also in a highly prestigious public office is a great asset and support? Will the Minister therefore reconsider any policies that might lead to the reduction of the effectiveness and public prestige of Anne Owers's office?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I wholeheartedly agree with the right reverend Prelate that the asset that Her Majesty's Chief Inspector brings is one that we value highly. I have said that on a number of occasions, and I do not hesitate to say it again: we intend to enhance and improve the inspection and not to reduce its effectiveness. That is the purpose of our reforms, and I can give the right reverend Prelate total assurance that that will remain our focus.

Baroness Sharples: My Lords, does the Minister accept that if there were more writers in residence there might be less recidivism?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, the noble Baroness makes a good point, and she will know that we are doing everything that we can together with the Learning and Skills Council to encourage such activity and that we hope that the alliances about which I have spoken on a number of occasions will enable even greater activity to take place of the sort that I know the noble Baroness will like very much.

Lord Dholakia: My Lords, one area of concern expressed by HMI is the very high prison population, which is now at a record level. The other area explained by HMI is the inadequacy of resources and provision for young adults, who so prominently feature in figures on reoffending. Can the Minister indicate when the prison population is likely to drop, so that such issues can be adequately addressed, particularly in relation to the rehabilitation of young adults?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his question. Of course, we are not at the highest level; we are at just over 77,000. I agree with the noble Lord that that is a high number, but the whole thrust of our policy is to get better risk assessments, identifying who needs to be in prison for how long and making sure that that is a positive and creative opportunity to reduce reoffending. All the work that we are doing to reduce reoffending is to that end. If we reduce reoffending, we shall reduce the prison population.

Baroness Howe of Idlicote: My Lords, given that it is the Government's view that the link between poor educational experience, unemployment and reoffending is striking, should not responsibility for this important area be represented in all prisons at the highest senior management level?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I certainly understand why the noble Baroness would ask that. I assure her that they are represented at an appropriately high level. The work of the Learning and Skills Council and our work with the DfES are extremely important. One thing that has been advocated for a long time is that there should be continuity of care right the way through. We now have that. It will take some time to improve, but improvements are occurring—not quickly enough for those of us who hunger for rapid change, but they are steady. That we should celebrate.

Hepatitis C: Contaminated Blood Products

Lord Jenkin of Roding: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether the Department of Health's report Self-sufficiency in Blood Products in England and Wales, published on 27 February, is a complete account of the circumstances leading to the infection of National Health Service patients with HIV and hepatitis C due to contaminated blood products.

Lord Warner: My Lords, the report published on 27 February examined key issues around self-sufficiency in blood products in the 1970s and early 1980s. The review was commissioned following suggestions that implementation of what was called the "self-sufficiency policy" in blood products in this period might have avoided haemophiliacs being treated with infected blood products. The report makes it clear that it was based on surviving documents from 1973, but that self-sufficiency would not have prevented infection of haemophiliacs with hepatitis C.

Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, that is all very well, but is the Minister aware that this report, internally produced by his own department, has been roundly condemned by many, including the Haemophilia Society? The society said that the report was,
	"a blatant attempt to gloss over the details of the events of the time and even to lay blame at the door of the patients themselves".
	Bearing in mind that the department "inadvertently", as the Minister said in response to me in an earlier Question, destroyed all its own files on contaminated blood products and that much new information has recently come to light in the United States, Canada, Ireland and Scotland, is there not now an unanswerable case for a full and impartial public inquiry into what really has been one of the major medical disasters in the National Health Service?

Lord Warner: My Lords, I do not accept any of those remarks. We regret that the papers were destroyed in error, which was, I think, explained to the noble Lord in a meeting with the former Permanent Secretary to the Department of Health. I think that it has been explained to him on a number of occasions that there was no deliberate attempt to destroy past papers. We understand that many of the papers were, unfortunately, destroyed, but I have to say that that did not take place under this Government.
	I understand the way in which parts of the report may have been interpreted by people from the haemophilia world, and I have enormous sympathy with the circumstances that they face. It is regrettable if it has had that impact on them, but it is a fair and accurate report on what it was asked to do—to identify many of the events and chronology in that period, which were quite complex, and the extent to which the policy of self-sufficiency would have avoided contaminated blood being used by haemophiliacs. The report makes it very clear that the self-sufficiency policy would not have achieved that objective.

Lord Snape: My Lords, before we line the pockets of the lawyers in a public inquiry, will the Minister accept that this is a human not a political problem? Did he see the BBC "Breakfast" programme this morning in which a young man was interviewed who had been infected by contaminated blood at the age of five, had been told by his parents at the age of 12 that he had a limited life expectancy, developed full-blown AIDS as a teenager and is still alive in his early twenties after a lifetime of pain and suffering, having been paid only £21,000 in compensation? Will the Government look again at such cases and, regardless of the necessity for a public inquiry, pay adequate compensation to those affected through no fault of their own?

Lord Warner: My Lords, I always sympathise with individual cases described by noble Lords. I remind the House that the Government established a hepatitis C ex gratia payment scheme, which has the underlying principle that it is targeted to help alleviate the suffering of people living with inadvertent hepatitis C infection. The reason why we have not gone in for a public inquiry is that there is no evidence of wrongful action on the part of people, which is a different situation from that found in Canada and Ireland. We are continuing to make payments under that scheme. To be fair, the previous government also set up a similar scheme called the Macfarlane Trust in relation to HIV infections through contaminated blood. Both governments have tried to respond to those concerns over the periods that they were in office.

Baroness Barker: My Lords, does the Minister accept that the report, which contains no information about what patients were advised at the time and no information about what government policy was on blood donations from high-risk groups, is an unsatisfactory report and will not help to move this policy or this practice forward; nor will it give any help to individuals such as the one mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Snape?

Lord Warner: My Lords, the document is helpful in setting out the chronology and the changes in scientific understanding during this period, which had a considerable impact on policy under successive governments on blood products and their use with haemophiliacs. There was a lot of clinical uncertainty in the early days in identifying hepatitis C. The document sets out clearly those clinical and scientific uncertainties. It gives an extensive 158 references to other documents on which it relied, and we will be looking at a freedom of information request that has been made for putting more of those documents in the public arena. We will look sympathetically at that FOI request.

Lord Morris of Manchester: My Lords, I have an interest to declare, not a pecuniary one, as president of the Haemophilia Society. Is my noble friend aware that this in-house inquiry began four years ago with a ministerial prediction that it would report within six months? Do not its errors and omissions—failing even to provide accurate figures on the numbers of patients infected or to acknowledge the 1,240 deaths caused—now totally vindicate the Haemophilia Society's call for an independent public inquiry into the worst-ever treatment disaster in the history of the NHS? Why does the report fail even to mention Mr Justice Burton's landmark High Court ruling on the legal duty to provide clean blood?

Lord Warner: My Lords, I accept that the document will not have satisfied everyone, but as I said, it was set up with the main purpose that Yvette Cooper, the Minister who set up the review, described—to identify whether the policy of self-sufficiency in blood products would have prevented the infection of haemophiliacs with hepatitis C through contaminated blood. It deals with that issue along with setting out clearly the chronology, which is complex, as I have said. I recognise the concerns that have been expressed, but we do not believe that a public inquiry is appropriate. There is no evidence of wrongdoing. The report makes that clear, and it gives a set of 158 references in full on which it relied. As I said, we will look sympathetically at placing more of those in the public arena in response to the FOI request that has been made.

Israel: Tom Hurndall and James Miller

Baroness Northover: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What representations they will make to the Government of Israel concerning the deaths of Tom Hurndall and James Miller following the verdicts by St Pancras Coroner's Court on 10 and 6 April respectively.

Lord Triesman: My Lords, the St Pancras coroner has formally written to my noble and learned friend the Attorney-General about both cases. Foreign Office Ministers will offer to meet the Hurndall and Miller families. We will decide on the next steps in relation to the Government of Israel only when the Attorney-General has been able to assess the coroner's findings and Ministers have discussed the cases with the families.

Baroness Northover: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply. However, this has been a very lengthy business, and the paperwork is all there. Will he now agree to the request from the St Pancras coroner that, in order to prevent further unlawful British fatalities, the Attorney-General and the Foreign Secretary should "require" the Israeli Government to hold an independent inquiry into these killings? Further, will he assure the Hurndall and Miller families, who are present here today, that the Government will act on the coroner's request that, under Section 1 of the Geneva Conventions Act 1957, the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General, who is also here today, and the DPP will consider taking criminal proceedings in the UK against not only those who carried out these unlawful killings but those higher up the chain of command in the Israel Defence Forces and elsewhere who may have aided and abetted them?

Lord Triesman: My Lords, I start by expressing a very deeply felt sentiment that these are terrible events that have happened to both families. I feel that as much as anybody. I hope that, in that light, the response that I make will not be thought inappropriate or wrong. It is really a matter for the Attorney-General's judgment on receipt of the reports; it is not for the Government. It is an independent matter for the legal judgment of the Attorney-General, and that is genuinely where it must rest. I hope that on that basis we will be able to proceed in a way that the families feel is helpful.

Lord Judd: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that one of the hallmarks of a democratic society is the accountability of the security and military services to democratic and legal institutions? Will he assure the House that, in their relationships with the new Israeli Government, the British Government will do everything possible to encourage them to understand that their transparent credibility in a commitment to any peace process will be partly, if not extensively, measured by the degree to which anything that the military does is in the context of that commitment to peace?

Lord Triesman: My Lords, I naturally agree with the proposition that the military of any democratic country must answer to the elected forums of that country. There can be no question that anything else could be the case. The British Government have consistently pressed the Israelis at every level for a full and transparent military investigation into both deaths. The issue of James Miller's tragic death is still before us. We are frustrated that the investigations have taken so long to complete and extremely disappointed that no one has been held to account for James's killing. The noble Baroness, Lady Symons, described our view as one of dismay. I take exactly the same view: every military has to answer for its code of conduct and its rules of engagement to the democracy that provides for it.

Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I am afraid that the matter goes a little further than that. First, the Minister will be aware that the family felt that it got very little support and help from the Foreign Office during the extremely difficult past two years. Secondly, he will be aware that, during the recent inquests into the cases of Mr James Miller and Mr Tom Hurndall, there was virtually no co-operation by the Israeli Government. That seems a tragedy, given that the cases raise extremely serious issues about rules of engagement, the extent to which they are maintained by the relevant government and the obvious suffering of families whose sons were completely innocent of an aggression or offence of any kind. Will the noble Lord consider carefully what the Foreign Office can do in these cases? Also, taking into account the Attorney-General's great commitment to the rule of law internationally and nationally, what steps might be taken to ensure that the rules of engagement under which the incidents occurred are carefully reviewed by the Government of Israel?

Lord Triesman: My Lords, I understand that my noble and learned friend the Attorney-General will make a statement once he has been in a position to study what the coroner has said. Those issues will be fully and effectively explored in those circumstances. I have never suffered a loss of the kind that both these families have tragically endured, and I do not know whether someone who has never suffered such a loss can ever really comment in an effective way on it. I make no pretension to do so. Going back as accurately as I can through the papers that relate to James Miller, I believe that we have made 40 interventions on the case with the Israelis, at ministerial and Permanent Under-Secretary level, in order to try to get them to co-operate fully and to move in a direction that would not have led to the dismay that I have just described.

Government of Wales Bill

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
	House in Committee accordingly.
	[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
	Clause 1 [The Assembly]:

Lord Crickhowell: moved Amendment No. 1:
	Page 1, line 5, leave out first "to be"

Lord Crickhowell: Amendments Nos. 1 and 3 are probing amendments. This is a Bill that starts by declaring that there is "to be" an Assembly when there already is an Assembly. In due course, we will come to clauses that establish what happens to that existing Assembly. It is reasonable to ask, however, why the Bill is drafted in this way. As this is in part a consolidation measure and in part new legislation, it may be argued that it is tidier and simpler to proceed in this way. However, there is a danger: this is a big Bill. There are some easily identified clauses that we can all recognise as important. But there is a risk that we will miss or fail to detect other clauses that make changes which may be very important.
	It is also a fact that as events have moved on since the Bill was drafted revision of some clauses may be required. We already have government Amendments Nos. 5 and 6, for example, which do just that. It is very desirable that the Minister should clearly identify, clause by clause, and as we proceed, where the drafting simply replicates existing legislation and where changes are being made and for what reason. My amendment provides an opportunity to make some general points that have not been addressed at Second Reading. I made my general position very clear during the Second Reading debate. I do not think that we should go back to the structures in place before the referendum. I think that our job is to attempt to make the post-referendum Assembly Government more effective, in so far as we can do that, by building on the experience of the existing Assembly, and so long as we do not go beyond the authority granted by the Welsh people in that referendum.
	The previous legislation, in my judgment, went too far in seeking to impose procedures on the Assembly that would have been much better decided by the Assembly itself. If we are to have an Assembly with wide powers, surely it should be allowed to decide its own procedures in the light of its own experience. Parliament should limit itself to imposing procedures that are required to ensure constitutional propriety and to prevent it acting beyond the powers that have been granted to it by Parliament, but should not attempt to impose other matters on the Assembly. The Bill removes, or relaxes, some of the procedural restrictions, but we will need to consider whether the Government have got the balance right, and in particular whether the role given to the Secretary of State is appropriate. There are some Liberal Democrat amendments that raise that issue with which I have some sympathy.
	The report of the Constitution Select Committee of this House comments on that subject in paragraph 18 on page 10, when it points out that Clause 29 requires the Standing Orders of the Assembly to make specific provision on the party political composition of committees. It tells us that there is no comparable provision in the Scotland Act 1998 in relation to committees of the Scottish Parliament. It concludes:
	"It may be thought that clause 29 is an inappropriate incursion into matters that should be left for the Assembly to determine for itself".
	That is exactly the kind of interference that I have sought to identify, and we should look to see whether there are other cases.
	The performance of the existing Assembly has been mixed. Much of what it does is, I fear, barely recognised by the people of Wales. That may be the fault of the media, which is not exactly comprehensive in its coverage of the Assembly's activities. It is probably better known for what it has got wrong than for its achievements. One Assembly Member has told me that at least in part that is due to weaknesses in the present structure and the procedural limitations to which I have already referred. Clearly, the situation will be considerably helped by the separation of the Executive role from the legislative and scrutiny functions. That is a change that I warmly welcomed at Second Reading.
	There is an important need for arrangements that make clear where responsibility lies, but that does not mean that it will always be wise to take within the responsibility of the Assembly all the functions for which it is responsible. Even if their nature may change, there will still be a useful role for quangos and for the contribution of individuals with wide experience who are prepared to offer their skills in public service. Time alone will tell whether it has been wise, for example, to absorb within the Assembly the work of the Welsh Development Agency and the Welsh Language Board. I have my doubts about that, particularly in the case of the Welsh Language Board.
	There is a need for arrangements that enable Assembly Members to challenge, and if necessary bring to heel, Members of the Executive. That has been amply proved by the extraordinary conduct of Mr Pugh, whose treatment of Geraint Talfan Davies—whose contribution to and knowledge of Welsh culture and the arts far exceeds his own—has in my judgment been disgraceful. The manner in which he has dealt with the Arts Council of Wales and arts funding has caused well justified and widespread anger and concern. I cite that simply as an example of where there is a need for independent and separate judgment by Assembly Members of the actions of the Executive.
	The changes that we make to the Bill may not prevent in the future ministerial folly or incompetence. But as we move from one form of assembly to another, we can ensure that the lines of responsibility are clear; and that the elected Members of the Assembly are in a position to prevent abuse and to keep the people of Wales fully informed about the way in which government is being conducted in Wales.
	On Amendment No. 2, which will be moved shortly from the Liberal Democrat Benches, the proposition was debated in a committee of the Assembly, and rejected by seven votes to one with two abstentions. If we are to take the Assembly seriously, perhaps we should take its advice on this matter. I beg to move.

Lord Livsey of Talgarth: In proposing Amendment No. 2, it is necessary for us as a party to state where we are coming from as regards the kind of assembly we wish to see. Our amendment would insert that there should be,
	"a Parliament for Wales to be known as the 'Senedd'".
	For a long time we have stuck to important principles. We wish to see created a Welsh parliament with primary law-making powers; we want that parliament to have 80 members; and we want to see it elected by the single transferable vote. If that is the case, it is entirely logical for that body, which would have primary legislative powers, to be called a "senedd". Indeed, Her Majesty opened the senedd on 1 March of this year. There was some controversy before that very fine occasion but it was reported in the press that she opened the senedd. We believe that that is the correct way to go ahead and that it should have the name "senedd".
	Amendments Nos. 1 and 3, proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, are eminently sensible. They clarify the situation. There is a need to spell out the obvious: that there is indeed a National Assembly for Wales at present. That is a fact. That is clarified by those amendments.
	Our proposal in Amendment No. 2 is simple. We wish to see the legislative body called the senedd.

Lord Anderson of Swansea: I am persuaded so far by what the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, said in respect of what is, and what is to be. I look forward to the Minister's response.
	The noble Lord, Lord Livsey, said that his amendment related to what sort of parliament "we wish to see". That is an aspiration. As the Bill is drafted, even if there were 80 members, and STV, that would not alter its nature. Words have a baggage; they have a meaning. A parliament is very different from an assembly. A parliament may come in time but even with the amendments proposed by the noble Lord, the body could not amount to a parliament.
	As regards the word "senedd", some of us who attended the opening of the new building at the beginning of March were a little concerned about the use throughout of the Welsh words rather than the English. I yield to no one in being in favour of bilingualism. I also pay tribute to the noble Lord who introduced the Welsh Language Act some 10 years ago and the way in which that has effectively defused what could have been a highly combustible debate within Wales in respect of the language. The Conservative Party did a great service to Wales as regards that Act, preventing, say, the language division of Belgium and several other countries. Yet the Assembly has chosen to use the Welsh word for "chamber", for example. If we believe in bilingualism, we should be consistent. The sad thing is that those who were responsible for the naming of the parts of the Assembly have chosen Welsh words, suggesting that their commitment is essentially to monolingualism. I raise that matter as a pointer and a danger, but I hope that it will be recognised that it is not in the spirit of the Welsh Language Act and not in the spirit of bilingualism. I suspect that the noble Lord on the Benches opposite will have a certain sympathy for it.

Lord Elystan-Morgan: On the amendment dealing with whether we use the word "parliament" or "senedd" to describe the present Assembly, I consider this a matter of considerable principle. Members of the Committee may ask, "What is in a name?". As Shakespeare put it,
	"A rose by any other name would smell as sweet".
	But not when one is dealing with parliamentary draftsmanship and not when names are symbolic of the hopes and aspirations of a whole community. That is, essentially, what the amendment is about.
	I shall make my submissions briefly. First, there is a very solid precedent for the use of the word "senedd", at least in its English form. In the legislation of 1978, which preceded the referendum of 1979—the Committee will remember that the Act of Parliament set up the structure of that institution but it was up to the Welsh people to accept it or not and in the event they did not—the term used for the body was not "assembly" or "parliament", but "senate". Therefore, one should always remember that there is that solid and respectable precedent to be built upon.
	Secondly, I do not believe there is anything pejorative in the use of the word "senate". Some people in Wales have argued that it has indeed an unfortunate connotation, coming from the Latin senex, meaning an old man and, therefore, that it depicts a body of senile people. I am quite sure that the average age of Members in the Welsh Assembly at present is somewhat younger than that of both Houses at Westminster.
	We also have the precedent of the Scotland Act 1998. The Scots achieved a parliament. As the jurisdiction, particularly the legislative jurisdiction, of the Welsh body was not exactly on a par with Scotland, it might be argued that that distinction should be drawn. But we are now dealing with a Bill that closes that gap considerably. Part 3 of the Bill will enable substantial legislative decisions to be made on a fairly regular basis. Part 4 will create a full-blown legislature. It will be up to the Welsh people whether or not they opt for it, but that option will be there. That enabling legislation will be a fact and a reality if this Bill passes.
	Furthermore, there have been, as Members of this House are well aware, very many home rule Bills over the past century or so—I think they go back to about 1880. In each case, as far as I know, there was a reference, not to an assembly, but to a parliament. Therefore, bearing in mind that in 1978 a body that did not have half the authority held by the present body was called a senate, it would be retrograde and strange to adhere to the term "assembly".
	I heard, with great respect, the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Swansea. However, the short point is that there is no such term of art in the nomenclature "assembly" as to tie this House to any particular form of constitution. It is a general term. Again, it seems that if we adopt this amendment—I doubt whether the Government will be so completely accommodating—it would not do more than show respect for the hopes and aspirations now generally held by a majority in Wales as to a form of government that would be worthy of the Welsh nation.

Lord Roberts of Conwy: I am sure that we are all grateful to my noble friend Lord Crickhowell for opening in his usual poignant and effective style the first Committee debate of the Bill and for highlighting the simple fact that we already have a National Assembly for Wales, and have done so since the Government of Wales Act 1998. Section 1 of that Act states:
	"There shall be an Assembly for Wales to be known as the National Assembly for Wales or Cynulliad Cenedlaethol Cymru".
	Those words of translation were carefully chosen and debated at that time. We should be careful before making an abrupt change. We must be sure that it would be acceptable to the Welsh people. Let us not forget that "Senedd" is the word normally used in Welsh to describe this Parliament of Westminster, which is somewhat different from "Cynulliad Cenedlaethol Cymru". The next subsections of Section 1 of the Government of Wales Act 1998 state:
	"The Assembly shall be a body corporate",
	and that the,
	"exercise by the Assembly of its functions is to be regarded as done on behalf of the Crown".
	When one compares the content of that section with the content of the first clause of this Bill—and, indeed, the remainder—one begins to realise the extent of the change envisaged in the new Bill. The new Assembly is not a later model; it is a new creation. It is not, as a whole, a body corporate—that status is confined to the Assembly Commission. As for its functions, the majority are to be transferred to Ministers in the Assembly government.
	Some might say that the Ministers, rather than the Assembly, are the real gainers under this Bill. As the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee has noted, in paragraph 11 of its seventeenth report:
	"The principle of this bill is that powers to make delegated legislation should in future be conferred on Welsh Ministers, the First Minister or the Counsel General (who is not required to be a member of the NAW)".
	The transfer of functions to Ministers, in the process of separating the executive and legislative arms of the Assembly under the 1998 Act, is extensive and goes beyond the provisions of Part 2 of this Bill, to Part 6 and the transitional provisions in Clause 161 and Schedule 11. The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee states in paragraph 45 of its report that,
	"it is Schedule 11, not an order under clause 58, that gives NAW's existing functions of making subordinate legislation to Welsh Ministers".
	So there is a subtraction of power from the Assembly proper and an accretion of power to Ministers, as I read the Bill and, I think I am right in saying, as the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee reads it. The committee considered that,
	"the transitional provisions are more significant than in most other bills and that the affirmative procedure should apply to orders which modify Schedule 11".
	I hope that we will remember that point when we come to that part of the Bill.
	The National Assembly of the 1998 Act, which was modelled on local authorities, has not been an outstanding success in all respects, as the strong wish to change it expressed by the Assembly itself in 2002 clearly indicates. The Government's endorsement of the present Bill, based on the White Paper Better Governance for Wales, points to the same conclusion. The inescapable fact is that the present system does not appear to command the support of the majority of the people it serves. Even the most optimistic interpretation of opinion polls does not assert that with any conviction.
	The Bill represents a fresh start, which is conveyed in the first clause. The key question is whether it is the right start. The Secretary of State, Mr Peter Hain, said in the other place as recently as 28 February that:
	"I have no doubt that if a referendum were held today, it would be lost".—[Official Report, Commons, 28/2/06; col. 209.]
	That view hardly shows confidence in the rectitude of the old Bill or of the present one, but quite the reverse. However, at this stage, our task as an official Opposition is not to outline an alternative or to indicate a preference for one of those already presented, but to be constructively critical of the Government's proposals. That will, I hope, describe our conduct in Committee.

Lord Roberts of Llandudno: I welcomed the words of the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, who quoted something that I was going to quote: Shakespeare's words "a rose by any other name". I suggest that a daffodil by any other name would look just as beautiful. Of course, this is not the same daffodil or the same rose. As the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy, said, the Bill is a new start. It is a new opportunity. The Government often say that they fulfilled their pledges to Wales and Scotland and gave them the devolution of power that they asked for and voted for some years ago. This would be a great opportunity for the Government to take pride in a new title. They would be able to say in future elections that they gave Wales the "Senedd", the Senate. That would be a new step forward. I would like to say this in Welsh, but it is not the manner of this House for me to do so. But what a chance for the Government to say that they gave Wales a Senate that reflected the new role and the moving forward of devolution in Wales.
	As has been mentioned by my noble friend Lord Livsey, the building in Cardiff has the name "Senedd" on it. Surely it is appropriate that the body that meets within that building should also be the "Senedd". I suggest to the Government that this is an opportunity to say that this is another landmark for which they are responsible. I am sure that most Members of this House would welcome a change of title from Cynulliad—assembly. There are school assemblies, the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland and many other assemblies, but the new body in Wales will have legislative powers, which will develop as the years go on. The Government would find it so easy, this time, to mark this development by accepting this amendment and the term "Senedd" or Senate.

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: The past 27 minutes have shown what an interesting Committee stage we will have on the Bill. I hope I can say that we have not been addressing the three amendments, which noble Lords have used to introduce general views on the Bill. I say that because I hope I will be excused for responding very specifically to these three amendments and not to some of the arguments and points made on Second Reading.
	Amendments Nos. 1 and 3, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, seek to modify the description of the Assembly in Clause 1 and to redefine it as an institution that already exists. This could be perceived as true, but the provisions in the Bill redefine the term "Assembly" by splitting the legislature from the Executive, as we have heard. Both sides of the House have welcomed that. The noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, welcomed it on Second Reading, and re-emphasised that point today. As a result of the clause, the Assembly will no longer be a corporate body consisting of a legislature and an executive arm as provided for in the Government of Wales Act 1998; it will be an unincorporated association of its elected Members, much as the House of Commons is. Technically, therefore, it is new. The noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, said that that the two amendments were probing, and I hope he will not press them after my explanation.
	Amendment No. 2, in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Livsey of Talgarth, Lord Thomas of Gresford and Lord Roberts of Llandudno, is, as we know, identical to the one tabled in Committee in another place. It would rename the Assembly the "Senedd". Since 1999, the National Assembly for Wales has become an established feature of public life in Wales. As we saw from the recent ICM poll, public recognition of and support for the Assembly has increased as time has passed. In the Government's view, it does not make sense to change the name of an institution that has become established in the public consciousness, but I resist with some difficulty the extremely eloquent arguments of the noble Lords, Lord Roberts of Llandudno and Lord Elystan-Morgan.
	The term "National Assembly" is used for legislatures across the world. Four EU member states have parliaments or lower houses that bear the title "National Assembly" in their respective languages. In total, it is used by 62 countries around the world, so Wales is in good company. It is our firmly held view that to change these terms now would risk further confusion even as we try to make things clearer and more transparent. I have explained the Government's position. I do not expect noble Lords who have spoken to the amendments with such passion to accept what I have said, but I hope that they will not press them.

Lord Crickhowell: I am grateful to the Minister for explaining why there is no real explanation or reference in Clause 1 to the fact that there is an existing Assembly. As I said at the outset, I regarded these amendments as probing; I certainly do not intend to press them. But I am sorry that the Minister did not give me the assurance, for which I asked, that, as we go through this very large and complicated Bill, he would identify where real changes were being made and point out what we had before and what we have now. It is very important that we should understand at every stage exactly what we are doing.

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: I must apologise for not having picked up that point in my speech. We will attempt to do that. We will have discussions with officials and try to do precisely what the noble Lord has asked, because it would be very helpful and eminently sensible for us to follow that course.

Lord Crickhowell: I thank the Minister for that. My noble friend Lord Roberts of Conwy identified an extremely important point—one that I had not fully recognised—that we are transferring power to Ministers. That makes it extremely important that we consider very carefully exactly how the Assembly, which we now have had defined to us by the Minister in explaining Clause 1, will be able to control those Ministers and effectively keep their actions under proper review. That is, step by step, what we will have to do as we proceed with the Bill.
	On the question of the name, I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, was a little rash to take as his precedent the Bill that, after all, was so decisively rejected by the people in Wales at the time—so decisively that the then Secretary of State, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris, was clear that had an elephant appeared in his garden at the time it would have been impossible not to recognise it. The noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Llandudno, pointed out that the Assembly had chosen to call the new building the "Senedd". Perhaps that was so that it could separate it from its existing building, which I am happy to say is still known by many as Crickhowell House.
	Be that as it may, it seems to me that the overwhelming argument against the case put by the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, and those who spoke, is the fact that this matter has been fully considered by the Assembly and rejected by seven votes to one. Surely, that is an example of where we should listen to the Assembly and its Members. So I go along with the Government's rejection of this point.

Lord Elystan-Morgan: I make a rather obvious point. If the decision is to be that of the Assembly, and we regard it as having a sovereign morality in the matter, does the noble Lord accept that if the Assembly took a different view, it would be perfectly legitimate, presumably under Part 3, for that change of name to be brought about by the Assembly?

Lord Crickhowell: When we come to Part 3, we will discover that clause after clause was debated by the Assembly and that all the parties voted in one way and the Government voted in the opposite direction. There were tied votes and the Presiding Officer had to act as presiding officers do—as the Lord Chancellor does in this House and as the Speaker does in the other place—and vote for the status quo. So I am not sure that the noble Lord will be on entirely strong ground when we reach later parts of the Bill. All I want to say at the moment is that I entirely agree that the Government were right to reject Amendment No. 3. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Thomas of Gresford: had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 2:
	Page 1, line 5, leave out from first "be" to end of line 7 and insert "a Parliament for Wales to be known as the "Senedd""

Lord Thomas of Gresford: My name is attached to this amendment. Although it is grouped—

Lord Boston of Faversham: Forgive me; as the noble Lord proposes to speak to this amendment, I must point out to the Committee that if this amendment is agreed to I cannot call Amendment No. 3.

Lord Thomas of Gresford: This amendment was grouped with Amendments Nos. 1 and 3. As it covers a different subject, I seek to move it for the purpose of replying to the Minister. Obviously, I do not expect him to respond. I think that this is in accordance with proper procedure. The noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, was on his feet very quickly to respond to Amendment No. 1 and he withdrew it before I had any opportunity of intervening.
	Therefore, perhaps I may direct the Committee again to Amendment No. 2. The essential thing that this Bill does is entirely to change the structure of the National Assembly for Wales. It has already been pointed out that the Assembly was fashioned as a corporate body, taking corporate responsibility for its activities. The Bill now happily moves on to a structure where the powers are handed over to Ministers and there is an executive and a Parliament of the sort we know. As the Assembly will be of an entirely different status from the way in which it was set up, it seems to me very appropriate that we should take the opportunity to change the name. Further, if Part 4 comes into operation at some future time, it will be as much a legislature passing primary legislation as any other assembly or gathering of politicians anywhere in the world.
	The noble Lord, Lord Anderson, objected to the fact that the word "Senedd" is used. Bilingualism is in the amendment because it states that there shall be,
	"a Parliament for Wales to be known as the 'Senedd'".
	That that word has some meaning and some significance is reflected, as noble Lords have said, by the fact that the building is now called the Senedd.
	I invite your Lordships to consider that there will really be no difference between the devolved body in Wales and the devolved body in Scotland once this Bill comes into operation. Through use of the "Assembly Measures" that are set out in the Bill, Members of the Assembly will be able to exercise primary legislative powers. The Assembly will operate on the same basis as the Scottish Parliament. I see no reason why its proper designation should not be given. The noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, said that the Bill must be forward-looking and that we must not look back to the past. We have seen devolution take place in Wales in three stages. We saw, first of all, the Welsh Office being set up as a purely administrative body. We then moved to the corporate model. We are now moving to what is known throughout the world as a parliament. If it is an established feature of Welsh life, as the Minister described it, let us call it by its proper name and give it its proper dignity.

Lord Livsey of Talgarth: Having already spoken to the amendment, I merely thank the noble Lords, Lord Elystan-Morgan and Lord Roberts of Llandudno, for their strong support for the name. A debate has been had on this issue and I have judged the feeling of the Committee on it.

[Amendment No. 2 not moved.]
	[Amendment No. 3 not moved.]

Lord Boston of Faversham: If Amendment No. 4 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 4A.

Lord Livsey of Talgarth: moved Amendment No. 4:
	Page 1, line 8, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
	"(2) The Senedd is to consist of eighty members elected through the single transferable vote from multi-member constituencies."

Lord Livsey of Talgarth: The amendment proposes that election in multi-Member constituencies should take place by the single transferable vote and that the Senedd should consist of 80 Members to bring that about. It would replace Clause 1(2). As far as support for the amendment is concerned, I refer the Committee to the Richard report, whose conclusions on this issue are very straightforward and easily understood.
	Paragraph 47 of chapter 14 of the report states:
	"If AMS [additional member system] is to be replaced, the best option for electing an 80 Member Assembly is the STV [single transferable vote] system. This would not necessarily produce a more proportional outcome than AMS - it might not, depending on the size of the constituency (Chapter 12). The case for adopting the STV system would be to maintain the principle of proportionality while ensuring that all Members were elected in the same way, and enjoyed the same relationship with the electorate".
	As regards this amendment, that is very straightforward.
	I shall also refer to other amendments in this group which are put forward in our name. Amendment No. 7 refers specifically to multi-Member constituencies, which is a concomitant of creating the STV system, and Amendment No. 14 refers to single transferable vote constituencies. Constructing a system via these amendments would give each Member of the Assembly equal validity in terms of the voting system. It would create what we believe to be a fairer Assembly. Amendment No. 21 refers again to single transferable vote elections. Amendment No. 24 refers to the lowering of the voting age to 16. This is a comprehensive group of amendments put forward in our name, which we believe to be worthy of consideration by the Committee.

Lord Roberts of Conwy: I have listened carefully to what the noble Lord has said in favour of this amendment and the substitution of the single transferable vote system, as described by the Richard commission report. However, the amendment generates a number of concerns. Changing the number of elected representatives and the voting system would be a huge adjustment for the Welsh Assembly. Furthermore, accepting this amendment would mean introducing the system without any serious consultation or debate. I am very antipathetic towards that.
	It is essential that before any new system is considered there should be extensive consultation about whether the people of Wales see the single transferable vote as a suitable replacement to the current additional Member system, which we will come to shortly. STV is also damaging to important constituency links between Member and voter and impacts on the democratic accountability that those links enable. Much larger constituencies with more Members will fundamentally reduce the link between an MP and his or her constituency. Accepting this amendment would lead to a fundamental change to the voting system in Wales. We cannot support an amendment which calls for such a change without prior consultation with those that it affects. I am therefore of the opinion that we should maintain the current additional member system, as I shall argue shortly, which enables us to include the best features of the first-past-the-post system while including proportionality between parties through party list voting.

Lord Richard: Since my report has been mentioned, perhaps I may explain why we came to our conclusions. Briefly, this was a severely practical argument that resulted in what I hope was a severely practical conclusion. We looked at the work the Assembly would be called upon to do and concluded that 60 Members would be insufficient. If one takes away from the total the number who would be Ministers, one is in a situation in which it is barely possible to man the committee system which the Assembly has operated for some time with the remaining Members.
	If the Assembly is too small in terms of manpower, one has to ask this question: if you increase the number of Members, can the electoral system be left exactly as it is? Again, we came to the conclusion that 80 Members would be the right number. There is nothing magic about the figure; it is a sensible number to recommend for an assembly with the additional powers that we had recommended for it. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, that the Assembly is now going to have some legislative powers and therefore the burden being placed on it by this Bill is not all that different from the burden that would have been placed on it if the recommendations of my commission had been accepted in their entirety.
	From there, we asked how to get 80 Members elected to the Assembly. During the commission we heard a fair amount of evidence to suggest that there were difficulties between the Assembly Members elected for the constituencies and those who were on the list. The Committee will forgive me if I do not go into the detail of what those difficulties might be, but there is no doubt that 40 directly elected Members and 20 from the list system has created certain inner tensions, which it was difficult to see how to resolve by increasing the number of list Members. If there are problems with a 40:20 division, the problems with a 40:40 split would be infinitely greater.
	We then came to the following conclusion as the result of what I hope was a fairly logical sequence: if the Assembly is to be given more powers and 60 Members would make it too small and 80 is the right number; if you cannot have a system of 40 elected and 40 list Members, what should you have? I have to say that when the commission started out on this exercise, I was not an unquestioning adherent to the single transferable vote. But I am also bound to say that once we had looked at all the alternative systems of proportional representation—we accepted that there had to be an element of proportionality built into it, otherwise we would end up with one-party domination of the Assembly which even those on my side would agree might not be entirely appropriate—we had to ask which system should be adopted. We looked at all the different systems of proportional representation in order to achieve a system in which, first, every AM would have equal validity and, secondly, there would be broad proportionality across the Assembly in order to reflect in broad proportion the views of the people of Wales. However, with the best will in the world, we could not come up with a different or better system. A system with a number of constituencies grouped together so that the operation of the single transferable vote could take place would result in an Assembly that was broadly proportional and large enough to do the job the commission wanted to place upon it.
	If the Bill goes through in its present form, we will be placing burdens on an Assembly of 60 Members which personally I doubt whether they will be able to fulfil. By all means let them try—I can see the argument which says, "Very well. We think we can do it with 60 Members". If that is the message sent by the Assembly, it is not for this House to stand in its way, saying: "If you think you can do it with 60 Members, try it with that number". However, I have no doubt whatever what the eventual result will be: the Assembly will not be able to function properly with a membership as low as 60, and there will then be pressure to increase the number. If that is so, we will have exactly the same electoral difficulties as the ones my commission tried to face.

Lord Roberts of Llandudno: I support everything that the noble Lord, Lord Richard, said. I am delighted to hear him—as the one who, in great depth, went into the method of electing Members to the Welsh Assembly—say it today.
	The noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy, referred to the loss of connection between a Member and his or her constituency. Already we have STV for European elections in Wales. We used to have five regions; now we have one list for the whole of Wales. Wales has taken a step towards STV and people there understand the different forms of election. We do not have that direct connection as regards Europe but we now have four European Members. I do not think that anybody would say that they are less effective than the previous regional Members.
	One of our big problems with the Bill is the validity of the role of the regional list Member and the constituency Member. If we continue with the top-up system of additional Members, it will be whether or not we have the same people on the list as in the constituencies. We have not tackled properly the role of the regional list Member compared to that of the constituency Member, and one day we will have to. STV would sort it out for us; the single transferable vote would give equal validity and the same role to every Member, as at European level.
	I will refer to the Welsh institution as a Senedd, as I hope that one day it will become the Senedd. There are 129 Members of the Scottish Parliament, one for every 39,000 people; in Northern Ireland there are 108 Members, one for every 15,700 people; and in Wales there are 60, one for every 48,000 people. Therefore, the burden on Welsh Assembly Members is greater than that on Members in Northern Ireland or Scotland. As we heard today, the Government's landmark legislation will create more responsibility; yet how many Members will there be to shoulder that extra responsibility? There will be just the same number. Of that number, 12 are in the Government and there is a Presiding Officer and a Deputy Presiding Officer. If you subtract those 14, you are down to 46 Members, of whom the Government have a minority share. I am sure that the Government will see the validity of our argument that it would be far more beneficial and effective in carrying out scrutiny and dealing with legislation to have 80 rather than 60 Members in the Welsh Assembly or Senedd.

Lord Anderson of Swansea: It has been valuable to hear the reasons given by the noble Lord, Lord Richard, why he, personally, and a number of the members of his commission began as sceptics about STV but were forced by practical rather than ideological considerations to a certain conclusion. The initial reasons for AMS were essentially practical: to have as little change as possible. The number 40 came from the existing constituencies in Wales at that time, and there were the five European constituencies. As they were existing, known constituencies, it made sense to have 20—five times four—additional Members. It is also fair to say that the additional Member system has not worked particularly well. There is certainly a feeling among some that the list Members are perhaps less legitimate than the others, although that is probably misplaced and there are also complaints about the way in which they operate. We rehearsed some of those arguments on Second Reading.
	The arguments are finely balanced. Ultimately the question of increasing the number of Assembly Members from 60 to 80 will have to be faced because there are complaints from a number of Assembly Members that their workload is already high. This will increase substantially with what is already proposed in the Bill and as one moves further along the path there will be an even greater workload for those who are there. It may be that it is a step too far just at this stage. I remain—and I hope not for nostalgic reasons—committed to the close link between a Member and his constituency. STV by definition means multi-Member constituencies with all the problems that one sees accruing to that in other countries where people from the same parties fight each other. It may lead to increasing populism within that.
	There is no ideal system. In its wisdom the Richard commission came to its own view and I am inclined just on balance to retain the existing system for the moment but with the caveat that ultimately, with an increasing workload and more to come, we will have to face something like STV and perhaps follow the same path as the Richard commission.

Lord Elystan-Morgan: I have listened intently and with great respect to the words of the noble Lord, Lord Richard, and I, too, am a considerable admirer of what has been achieved in the report and its recommendations. It must be one of the most assiduously considered and imaginatively crafted reports on any constitutional issue for a very long time. One must start from the proposition that although as the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy, says, it would be a massive change and although it may well be that there is justification for taking the voices of various interests and peoples in Wales on as wide a plane as possible, I nevertheless apprehend that it is an issue that simply will not go away and will have to be considered.
	Remember that of the 22 county councils in Wales all but five have a membership in excess of 60. In other words, if the vast majority of local authorities in Wales can only be properly served in a committee system by a number in excess—and in many cases far in excess—of 60 then clearly the case is made out for a greater number of Members in the Welsh Assembly. But there is also a deeper justification for the amendment and it is that it would remove an essential absurdity, which is that at the previous Assembly elections in 2003 the Labour Party won three times as many seats as all the other parties put together. I appreciate that it had long been determined before that, and that first-past-the-post crudity should be removed from the system and ameliorated by a system of regional Members in addition. Be that as it may, it means that a party that has enjoyed power in Wales for more than three-quarters of a century will from time to time find itself unable to exercise its powers as a government.
	I will readily confess that when these matters were under consideration in the late 1990s with a view to setting up a Welsh Assembly, I was a judge at the time and was in no position to make any political comment whatever, but I very fondly adhered to the idea that there should be some form of additional Member system. I regarded that as being honourable and chivalrous and as avoiding the certainty of a long-term Labour hegemony that might ultimately have a stultifying effect on the Assembly, and thought that it might be the best way out. I was wrong—totally, absolutely and utterly wrong. I confess my guilt and penitence in that regard.
	The ideas behind the additional Member system were good and proper, and there was every reason to believe that there would be an inclusive attitude by all the parties concerned. Without in any way suggesting that there is a monopoly of original sin for those minor parties that does not belong to the Labour Party, that was clearly not to be. I have no doubt that had the situation been totally in reverse, the same faults would have appeared. We have a system now whereby, dependent upon illness or some other quirk of fate, there is the possibility from week to week of a vital vote being lost purely on the numbers game, and little to do with merit. That situation cannot be allowed to prevail.
	Likewise, looking back at the system, I think that even if it had not worked out exactly that way, it is a flawed concept of government for there to be two different types of Members in the same assembly. The role of the regional Members is so undefined—although I have no doubt that in most, if not in all, cases, they are people who work conscientiously and honourably—that it is very difficult for them to work side by side with the first-past-the-post elected Member.
	Like the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, many years ago when I was a Member in another place I felt that there was a bond and almost a chastity between the elected Member and his electorate, save for a period of about four or five weeks leading up to an election. But I felt that that chastity was respected, generally; other Members did not come into your constituency, either from your own party or from other parties, save on the basis of notice and understanding and, indeed, of total courtesy. I find it very difficult to imagine how regional Members and an individual constituency Member can work in a way that is in any way parallel with that principle.
	So the system must be changed—and if it must be changed, I should have thought that STV was as good an alternative as any. I do not think it perfect, because I believe that you break that link that should exist between the electorate and the single Member. If you double the membership, of course you do not have a single Member any more. My only plea would be that in clustering together the constituencies, one should make that cluster as small as reasonably possible. In other words, if it can be confined to three, four or five Members, all the better—but, even then, no single Member will be responsible for that constituency.

Lord Norton of Louth: I sympathise with the view expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson. I agree with the various points made about the extent to which the existing system is flawed, but there is a danger that we might rush into another system that might demonstrate not dissimilar flaws, and I am slightly worried that the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, might be getting to his feet in a few years' time and saying that he was completely wrong about embracing STV.
	We have discussed STV in this Chamber before, so I need not dwell on it but I shall briefly identify some of the problems. If what one wants is a system of proportional representation, as the noble Lord, Lord Richard, pointed out in his report, STV is not the way in which to deliver the most proportional system. In fact, if you want proportionality, the system that comes closest is an additional Member system—though not necessarily the one embodied in the Bill, because you need a 50:50 split between constituency and list. However, if one favours proportionality that is the route to go, not the single transferable vote route.
	We should also bear in mind that it is not a system that is widely used. In western Europe only Ireland employs it. There we see some of the problems, not least that to which the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, alluded. That is, if we do away with the present system we replace one form of conflict with another: conflict between list and constituency Member with conflict between Members within the same multi-constituency area. We see that in Ireland, because there the system has generated a form of localism where the Members devote far more time to the constituency than they devote to the Dáil. That is seen as one of the contributory reasons why the Dáil is one of the weakest legislative bodies in western Europe. We must be cautious. I recognise the flaws of the existing system, but there is a danger of saying that something must be done and rushing into STV. We need to be wary of going down that route. I admit that it is easier to say what one is against rather than what one is for, but I want to inject a note of caution before we go down this route.

Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I hope that noble Lords will not mind a Scot joining in the debate. The Minister seemed rather to resent Scottish interventions during Second Reading, which was a pity because in this aspect of the amendments on the additional members system there is a cross-over in experience and thinking, which some Welsh noble Lords have already mentioned. I have no personal experience of STV, but we have been discussing where I live in Scotland the effect of STV on the local government elections and how we are going to organise them.
	It has become clear where I live that in the local government context the effect of having a large area with a number of Members will be that there will be Members from a town far away from where we live about which we know nothing—and in which we are not terribly interested in the context of its purely local affairs—competing with Members from round where I live. If they belong to different parties and come from places that are not closely identified there are going to be problems that will have to be overcome. That is what one has to overcome with an STV system.
	But imagining the map of Wales—which, I admit, I do with some difficulty; I do not know it well—I remember from my experience in the Guide Association in Wales that some of the areas are very remote one from another. There will be Assembly Members under STV who do not know much about the local area where their constituents are living. Their constituents will have difficulty in identifying with them. I would have thought that the STV system would bring the Assembly further from the people than the present system, not closer. I base that purely on my understanding of the effect of STV in local government in Scotland. I would have thought that that alone is an argument against it.
	In relation to this debate and to the one on the amendment that my noble friend is about to move, it is essential that noble Lords should consider the issue above all from the point of view of the voters and not of the Members of the Assembly. Democracy is about what the voters want; it is about giving satisfaction to the voters and trying to get more people to vote. Elected Members have to come to terms with the system that they have. That is extremely important. I am sure that they could come to terms with STVs and I am sure that they can come to terms with the system that they have, but we must look primarily at the interests not of elected Members but of voters. That is an important point.

Lord Thomas of Gresford: I was rather surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy, said that the proposals had had no serious consultation and debate. I prefer the encomium of the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, who said that the Richard report was one of the most assiduously considered and imaginative reports there had ever been.
	This issue has been fully discussed and debated throughout Wales and the Richard commission came to a very clear decision. Just as we have looked at the structure of the Assembly and have seen that the proposals are to move on from the corporate structure to one more of ministerial responsibility and an executive, so we ought to consider that the electoral system which was first proposed was transitional. The Government ought not to be afraid of moving from it. The figure of 60 Members was chosen because there was a general fear that if you proposed more than 60, the people of Wales would reject the concept altogether because there would be too many paid politicians. Much was made by the opponents of devolution about the fact that we are having more paid politicians and all their staff thrust upon us. That probably restricted the number to 60. Practice has shown, as investigated by the Richard commission, that 60 is not enough, and is certainly not enough with the additional powers that are now being granted to the Assembly.
	In the transitional electoral system that we have a tension has grown up between the constituency Members and the regional Members. It is a tension that derives from our concept of first past the post which introduces the idea of winners and losers—not of how well represented an area is but that some people have won and other people have lost. There was undoubted resentment—I found that when touring Wales as a member of the Sutherland commission concerned with local government electoral systems—and a great deal of unhappiness expressed by members of the Labour Party that people who had lost in constituency elections were being returned as Members for a region upon a regional list. I recognise that tension. There has been a suggestion that regional Members have less validity than constituency Members. Only STV can cure that. The noble Lord, Lord Richard, told us that the commission looked at all sorts of systems. The STV system maintains and retains the connection with a constituency. It means that a Member is elected by the electors of that constituency and not on a closed party list, as happens with regional Members. I think that everybody in this House, except possibly the Government, would recognise that closed party lists are not a very happy state of affairs. Essentially it would mean that there was no difference between one Member and another. There would be equal validity, no question of rank and of, "I represent you better than that regional Member over there".
	The AMS system has been tried. It was an experiment. The numbers were an experiment and were transitional. Practice has shown that it is not satisfactory. I urge the Committee to consider that we should change it, and change it now.

Lord Davies of Oldham: We have had an interesting and inevitably wide-ranging debate on electoral systems, which was to be anticipated. First, I make it clear that there is a difference between the argument which my noble friend Lord Richard put forward in his commission, and which he articulated today, and the argument which has been presented by noble Lords from the Liberal Democrat Benches who are keen to advance the excitements of the single transferable vote. I was grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Norton, for pointing out some of the difficulties of the single transferable vote, and also to the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, who indicated his reservations about the virtues of that method. The difference between my noble friend Lord Richard and the Liberal Democrat Party on this is that my noble friend Lord Richard reached the position that there should be 80 Assembly Members for Wales, and that the single transferable vote was a way of tackling the election of those increased numbers. The Liberals are going about this the other way round, with the emphasis on the virtues of changing the voting system, and latching on to the report of my noble friend Lord Richard on the 80 Assembly Members.
	I will address the serious issue of the extra Members. We do not think that there is a great public appetite for additional professional politicians in Wales. I have not heard a single argument this afternoon that has testified to that. We have not had this afternoon any indication of whether in fact the National Assembly for Wales could adapt its working practices to encompass the additional load, which will certainly be consequent upon this Bill. But significant Members in the National Assembly for Wales are well aware of the fact that more work could be done more effectively. I quote no less a figure than the Presiding Officer, who is a Member of this House also, the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, who agreed that the timetable could be changed. He indicated, for instance, that the National Assembly for Wales was rising two weeks before the United Kingdom Parliament. At Christmas, he indicated that the Assembly could sit for at least 40 weeks, which is pretty close to the regular habits of the United Kingdom Parliament, with this House, I might add, from time to time, outdoing the other place in the number of sittings. He agreed that the Assembly could work longer. We all know that assemblies work a great deal longer than the National Assembly for Wales does at the present time.
	I am an admirer of the work that has been achieved so far, but the National Assembly for Wales is in its early days, in terms of how it organises itself and the question of its reputation with the people of Wales. It will want to enhance that reputation and I cannot think of a better way to do this than to address itself to its practices, to how it works, and to be able to organise itself so that work is done more effectively. I think there is considerable agreement among many of the Members of the Welsh Assembly. I do not think that an elected Member is likely to go before the electorate and say that they were against the additional obligations being put on them by the development of this legislation because it would involve more work. We are not convinced that we need additional numbers. It is only the additional numbers, however, that bring in this argument for the single transferable vote and all its horrors. The noble Lord, Lord Roberts, was his customary courteous and considered self in indicating that he was not totally convinced of the merits of that system. The noble Lord, Lord Norton, indicated just where it falls down in other legislatures.
	Let us try to see what Wales would look like under the single transferable vote. Almost certainly, there would be one constituency for Cardiff, with probably eight members for Cardiff. Well, there is a recipe for effective representation as far as Cardiff is concerned. Of course we would see that all the elected Members from different parties, if they were from different parties, would work in amity and concord in the interests of Cardiff, with never a fractious moment between them as they competed for the public's support in Cardiff. Come on, my Lords! That is a recipe for division, not for effective government. It is not even an effective measure for representation, because the problem for the Cardiff electorate would be just who to hold accountable in their substantial constituency.
	It is not as if we have not been down this road before. We know the problems with regard to the elections to the European Parliament and the problems that the British people have with the accountability of those Members. By accountability, I put no other argument forward than the straightforward fact that a very much greater number of the electorate knows who their Member of Parliament is than knows who their MEP is. That would certainly be true with regard to Assembly Members if we destroyed the constituency system. It destroys accountability, and the Government are against such a change. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, who also identified her anxieties about the implications for a rural area. Wales is pretty rural too, and a couple of these constituencies would be vast—for example, in northern Wales or central Wales, and that would present exactly the same problems.
	I recognised that the amendments would be spoken to with passion from the Liberal Benches. They are after all at the heart of what the Liberal party largely exists for, which is electoral change. I notice that the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, identified his reservations about any assembly which had Members who were elected in different forms. I do not know where the noble Lord stands on the question of reform of this House, but I have not heard anyone advocate such change in this House, unless they are in favour of a totally elected House. I have not heard too many representations on that part from Members of this House, and that is also true for representations from the other place. All other representations are for some form of mixed membership, so we may as well recognise that we may need to adjust to that. In a sense, Wales is blazing a trail on that, as is Scotland.
	Therefore, it is not for me to go into a great deal of detail on the amendments. To give the movers of the amendment their proper due, they have put together a group of amendments that makes entire coherent sense if one accepts the propositions that underlie the virtues of the single transferable vote, of large constituencies and a larger assembly. I do not think that case has been made.
	(16)

Lord Livsey of Talgarth: I have listened to the Minister and to the predictability of some of the things that he said. Before replying directly to what he said, I will say that we have had a useful, wide-ranging debate where a lot of issues have been examined in detail. I thank those Members who supported some of the principles of the single transferable vote. I recognise that devolution is a process, and we are attempting, by putting forward the amendments, to point in the direction of a more proportional system of representation in the Welsh Assembly. I well understand the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy, about the breaking of the link with the constituency. That is a big question which needs a lot of consideration. There are arguments about proportionality versus the constituency link.
	I was very pleased to hear the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Richard, on the report of the Richard commission. After a detailed examination of the situation he said that the committee system could not work with 60; and that it required 80 Members to do the job. I do not come from where the Minister was coming from. I want to see an efficient and effective Assembly which has the competence and the time to do the job. He spoke about professional politicians. Would he be more satisfied with amateur ones? Perhaps part of the problem is that we do not have enough professional politicians to do the job required in Wales. I believe that the STV system would provide a fairer and more competent Assembly able to do the job in the time required.
	I agree with the Minister in one respect. The time could be extended. I have no argument with him on that. None the less, with the increased responsibilities placed upon the Assembly, even as the Bill now stands, it is not a satisfactory state of affairs that in some cases there will be only six Members per committee. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, and others for their comments on STV. We on these Benches are not "latching on" to the report of the Richard commission, as the Minister put it. We are considering it as objectively as we can. The Electoral Commission studied it in great depth and agreed with the report's conclusions that the single transferable vote was the best system for Wales. One could boil this down to the tabloid argument: that we have too many politicians already; we do not need any more. Having considered the views in detail, the Electoral Commission has come out in agreement with the report of the Richard commission in favour of STV. I believe that I can rest my case on those arguments with confidence and, as regards the future, with optimism. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: moved Amendment No. 4A:
	Page 1, line 11, leave out from "for" to end of line 12 and insert "an all Wales Constituency (referred to in this Act as "All Wales Assembly Members")"

Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: The previous discussion was lengthy but I hope to keep the debate short although the list of amendments seems long. The amendments amount to a simple proposal: to have an all-Wales constituency Member for the additional member system. I wish to explain why I am proposing the amendment. I recognise that it is a probing amendment and I shall not seek a Division at this stage.
	I refer Members of the Committee to the report on the Government of Wales Bill from the Select Committee on the Constitution which hopes that the Government will take care to explain to the House what other options are being considered; for example, replacing the regional list with a single national list across the whole of Wales. It is with that background that I put forward these amendments.
	One of the problems of the Assembly Members has been that they do not have a clear job description. Those with a constituency, and those off the list, have been confused in their roles. I hope that an all-Wales constituency member would take into his brief a raft of issues quite different from the constituency issues. In Wales we have problems with division. We have geographical divisions which mean that north Wales and south Wales have often functioned somewhat separately and even in the south Wales strip there are differences between the east and the west. However, there are big problems that affect the whole of Wales, one of which is transport. Transport is notoriously bad in Wales and our roads have notoriously awful accident rates.
	We also have environmental issues that affect the whole of Wales and we have a rural environment in the middle. We have phenomenal potential for tourism and I hope that the tourism industry expands because Wales is an extremely beautiful country for people to visit. The Welsh Development Agency has an all-Wales remit as well. We need inward investment. My concern is that by maintaining small constituencies we do not get away from the rather inward-looking, narrow, local view to take a view of where Wales sits on the world stage and for that to be discussed within the Assembly. I know that it is discussed by representatives of Wales outside Wales, in Europe and so on.
	On a day-to-day basis, the Assembly deals with other issues with all-Wales implications, one of which relates to rationing. There has to be rationing in health and in education; the budget is not limitless. All those discussions have remained very much at the micro level. We have specialist commissioning on an all-Wales basis and yet within the Assembly we do not have a specific group of AMs with responsibility to take an all-Wales view.
	That is the background to my amendment. My other reason is simply the representation of very small groups within Wales. Looking at the system, it seems to me that it would just about be impossible for a member of a very small party, such as the Green Party, or someone standing as an independent, ever to stand a chance of being elected. I hope that, if it were possible to have an all-Wales constituency Member, that may also be possible for small parties. I use the Green Party as an example. I am not advocating that party above any other small party but it happened to come to mind. It should also be possible for someone who wishes to stand on an independent ticket in Wales because I think that would bring a degree of diversity to the Assembly and might move it beyond the four main planks of political parties that there are at the moment.
	There is the question of whether the list could be loaded—whether one would find that one political party would squeeze all its high-profile people at the top of the list into one area and somehow achieve a takeover bid. I think the Assembly itself would have to decide the role of an all-Wales constituency Member and how he or she would operate. With that background, I tabled these amendments. I hope that the Committee feels that they warrant at least a brief discussion and I welcome the response of the Minister. I beg to move.

Baroness Gale: I accept that the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, has put forward quite a good argument for why we should have all-Wales Members, but I do not agree with her. We have such an example with those who are elected as Wales MEPs. We have four in Wales and they are elected on the closed list system which I do not think has been a very good move. With the all-Wales elections, we have definitely lost links. I do not think it is good for the political parties, although I have no doubt that those Members who are elected do a good job for Wales. However, I think the individual link with a constituency has been lost. When any of the political parties campaigns now in the European elections, it is quite hard to get Members to come along because they no longer have an affinity with a candidate as they did with the regional constituencies that we used to have in Wales. I fear that would be the case if we had an all-Wales election of 20 Members.
	I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, that we need job descriptions for our list Members. I mentioned that at Second Reading, when I said that no political party had paid any attention to it when we were preparing for the first round of elections in 1999. I think I am right in saying that none of us thought of it; I do not remember any political party saying "This is a job description for the list members". We did not do it and, as a result, the list Members do not know what their particular role is, in the sense that a constituency Member knows what his or her role is in a constituency.
	Independent Members can get elected to the Welsh Assembly. We already have two. John Marek got elected in Wrexham in two elections. The Member for Blaenau Gwent, although elected as a Labour Member, chose to become independent. There are examples where independent people can get elected in the constituencies. Perhaps they could get elected on this all-Wales list, but I cannot imagine having 20 Members roaming around Wales, going into any constituency they choose. I am filled with horror at the thought. They could claim representation in any area of Wales. Although it would be marvellous if we could have the great feeling that these 20 Members would represent the whole of Wales and speak up for any part of it, that is not the nature of the Welsh people. We are very parochial. If somebody in, say, the south Wales valleys wanted to speak up for their particular area, they would not have that knowledge for areas in north Wales. They would not have had the experience of representing rural areas.
	All those things cannot lead me to support the idea of an all-Wales Member, thinking of the European Members and how parochial we are in Wales. I oppose this amendment.

Lord Norton of Louth: I will be brief. There are three problems with the proposed system. The first, fundamental, one is that it will not deliver what is intended: somebody who will speak for Wales. If you are being elected for Wales, as a candidate you are going to appeal to where most electors are concentrated. That will therefore militate against the rural parts of Wales, so it is a worse system than the existing one.
	The second, related, point—which has been touched upon—is that it will further distance the Members from electors. The danger there, experienced elsewhere where there are national list systems, is that Members will not have much constituency work, thereby increasing the tension between those carrying a constituency load and those who do not.
	The third problem is the control it would give to the parties. There is a danger that it would further the stranglehold of the parties experienced elsewhere. There are a lot of problems with national list systems. Electors do not feel that they have their Members, or attached to those they elect to the legislature, so this is moving in the wrong direction. There was a balance of arguments in the earlier amendment, but not in this one. With all due respect, the arguments are overwhelmingly against it.

Lord Livsey of Talgarth: Briefly, we do not support this amendment, although I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, does a tremendous amount of good work, and I can see the virtues of the proposal for an all-Wales constituency. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, said, there are a number of practical drawbacks. One of them, which the noble Lord pointed out, was the power of the political parties to nominate the lists. One could see a situation where Members were perhaps elected for the whole of Wales, but from just one part of Wales. They might predominate. That is perhaps the worst possible outcome, but it could happen. Although it is a good thing to have independents elected—it has been pointed out that there are some independents in the Assembly—there is a considerable downside to this proposal. We do not support this amendment.

Lord Anderson of Swansea: One of the weaknesses of Wales—which is also its strength—is the excessive localism. Hiraeth is not for Wales as a whole, but for a valley or a little area. That gives a great element of democracy. The problem of having an all-Wales constituency is that by representing everyone, representatives would represent no one. The point has already been made that such people would not have a constituency and would therefore not have the feet-on-the-ground knowledge that comes—if they do their job properly—to people elected by some of the systems that have been mooted, whether the existing one or the STV.

Lord Roberts of Conwy: The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, is right that Wales has national problems. It is important that Members of the Assembly should grasp those problems on a national scale. At the same time, those problems will not be recognised in detail unless the Members have a local attachment to a constituency or, as 20 Members currently have, to a region. That is why the old European regional constituency was adopted by the Government as the basis for the current regional membership. I agree with all the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Norton, which are extremely effective, because in an area such as Wales, which has a spread of population, it is clearly very difficult to devise a system that does not favour populous industrial areas at the expense of rural areas and that overcomes the problem of distance between the representative and his electors.

Lord Davies of Coity: The justification for a Wales constituency suggests to me that one would then be representing a country, rather than the people who live in it. Nearly 40 years ago, when I was elected to a parish council in Wales, there were six members of that council. One picked the top six. The people all voted and one represented the parish. One could walk into every street, go into every house and know everybody in the parish. The moment I went beyond that and represented the parish on a rural district council, I represented that parish and the people who lived in it. I did not represent another parish. If we are not careful and if this amendment were accepted, as my noble friend Lord Anderson said, one would represent nobody. In fact, one would appear to be representing a country and would not be representing the people who lived in it because one would not have any commitment to any particular group of people anywhere in the country. That is where this proposal is flawed.

Lord Davies of Oldham: The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, deployed some good arguments about what we all recognise is a problem; namely, regional lists. We all know where the criticisms come from. However, she will recognise that the Committee is not enamoured of the concept of national lists, and nor are the Government. That is not because we are being dismissive of the concept. In fact, we considered it very seriously. It was one of the significant representations put to the Welsh Affairs Select Committee by Dr Richard Wyn Jones of the University of Wales, Aberystwyth when there was consultation on these issues.
	For the reasons that have been adumbrated on both sides of the Committee, I believe that the noble Baroness will recognise the problem with regional lists. Again, I am grateful for the precision of the analysis given by the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, of the problems with the national list. I was almost going to use an analogy about shooting and animals, but I will depart from that lest it causes undue distress. It is sufficient to say that those arguments were presented adequately by him and I do not need to reiterate them. The problem with the regional lists is that individuals might seek to concentrate their resources, energies and desire to be effective representatives on a particular locale because of their affinity for their area or because they might consider that area to be a more fruitful and secure base in the future than their participation on the national list might be. That problem, which the national list might look as if it addresses, in fact merely compounds it. The great danger is that individuals elected on the national list would inevitably deploy themselves in areas where they thought they would be most effective, in the way in which they defined their own effectiveness. I am therefore not sure that it is a solution to the problems that we identify with the regional lists. I hope the noble Baroness will think she has had a good hearing and will be prepared to withdraw her amendment.

Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: I am most grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken and who have, with the customary courtesy of this House, very gently but firmly knocked my proposal on the head. The concept of all-Wales list members roaming around Wales reminded me of my weekend on call last weekend when I was the roaming doctor for south-east Wales, so I know very well what it feels like to be visiting lots of places and not know where you belong. I am grateful to everyone, but I am particularly grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Gale, for having picked up on the point that we have discussed outside the Chamber—namely, the need for very clear job descriptions for different types of members to get rid of existing tensions. I believe that those tensions are inappropriate, because they are all working very hard. Having given evidence to a committee of the Assembly, I must say that I am impressed by the way in which the members are working, whatever the electoral system that put them in place. I hope that things will be better. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 1 agreed to.
	Clause 2 [Assembly constituencies and electoral regions]:

Lord Davies of Oldham: moved Amendment No. 5:
	Page 2, line 2, at end insert "(as specified in the Parliamentary Constituencies and Assembly Electoral Regions (Wales) Order 2006)"

Lord Davies of Oldham: Amendments Nos. 5, 6, 30 and 47 are four minor and technical government amendments. Amendment No. 5 makes it clear that Assembly constituencies are parliamentary constituencies in Wales as specified in the Parliamentary Constituencies and Assembly Electoral Regions (Wales) Order 2006, which will have effect in relation to Assembly elections in 2007 and afterwards.
	Amendment No. 6 replaces reference to the European Parliamentary Constituencies (Wales) Order 1994 with reference to the Parliamentary Constituencies and Assembly Electoral Regions (Wales) Order 2006. This makes it clear that the five Assembly electoral regions are those specified in the Parliamentary Constituencies and Assembly Electoral Regions (Wales) Order 2006 and not those specified in the 1994 order. The 2006 order will have effect in relation to the 2007 Assembly elections and subsequent elections.
	Amendment No. 30 ensures that paragraph 4(7) of Schedule 2 to the Bill properly mirrors Section 39 of the Government of Wales Act 1998 by inserting a power for the Secretary of State to make "appropriate modifications" when making an order applying the Local Government (Contracts) Act 1997 to contracts entered into by the National Assembly for Wales Commission. The Secretary of State, under Section 39 of the 1998 Act, currently has such a power in relation to the National Assembly for Wales.
	Finally, Amendment No. 47 ensures that Clause 68 properly mirrors Section 39 of the Government of Wales Act 1998 by inserting a power for the Secretary of State to make "appropriate modifications" when making an order applying the Local Government (Contracts) Act 1997 to contracts entered into by the Welsh Ministers. I beg to move.

Lord Livsey of Talgarth: From these Benches, we recognise that these are tactical amendments. We agree with them. As they are the only government amendments listed, we would like to see them proceed.

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: Did I hear the noble Lord say that they were "tactical" amendments?

Lord Livsey of Talgarth: Technical amendments.

Lord Roberts of Conwy: I was about to correct the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, or tackle him on the same technical point. Certainly, these amendments have the Opposition's endorsement.

On Question, amendment agreed to.
	[Amendments Nos. 5A and 5B not moved.]

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: moved Amendment No. 6:
	Page 2, line 4, leave out from "are" to end of line 6 and insert "as specified in the Parliamentary Constituencies and Assembly Electoral Regions (Wales) Order 2006"
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	[Amendments Nos. 6A to 7 not moved.]
	Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
	Schedule 1 agreed to.
	Clause 4 [Power to vary date of ordinary general election]:

Lord Thomas of Gresford: moved Amendment No. 8:
	Page 2, line 33, leave out subsection (1) and insert—
	"(1) The Presiding Officer shall have the power to propose a day for the holding of the poll for an ordinary general election on a day which is neither—
	(a) more than one month earlier, nor
	(b) more than one month later,
	than the first Thursday in May.
	(1A) If the Presiding Officer makes a proposal under subsection (1), Her Majesty may by Order in Council—
	(a) make provision for the assembly to be dissolved on a day specified,
	(b) require the poll at the election to be held on the day proposed,
	(c) make provision for—
	(i) any provision of, or made under, the Representation of the People Acts, or
	(ii) any other enactment relating to the election of Assembly members,
	to have effect with such modifications or exceptions as are appropriate in connection with the alteration of the day of the poll, and
	(d) require the Assembly to meet within the period of seven days beginning immediately after the day of the poll."

Lord Thomas of Gresford: We move to the issue of general elections. Clause 4 is concerned with the power to vary the date of an ordinary general election and Clause 5 deals with extraordinary general elections. The point that I wish to raise with the Minister—and I shall be very interested in his response—is why the Secretary of State is the person who in Clause 4 can vary the date of the ordinary general election and why it is the Secretary of State who proposes the extraordinary general election under Clause 5.
	That is not the case in Scotland. The Scotland Act 1998 places upon the Presiding Officer the duty of proposing a day for holding the poll which is not more than one month earlier nor more than one month later than the first Thursday in May. Again, for an extraordinary general election in Scotland it is the Presiding Officer who proposes the day for the holding of a poll if the Parliament resolves that it should be resolved by a resolution of two-thirds of its Members voting.
	I think that it will be generally recognised as the Bill proceeds that one of the issues that we take with the Bill is the powers it gives to the Secretary of State. It is as though in Scotland the officers of the Parliament can be trusted but in Wales it is necessary to have a Westminster Minister take over some of the functions used by the Presiding Officer in Scotland. Accordingly, my Amendment No. 8 would replace "the Secretary of State" with "the Presiding Officer"; to give him the power to propose the day for the holding of a poll on a day which is not the first Thursday in May within the limits specified; and that he should have that power only if the Assembly has passed a resolution in favour with at least two-thirds of the Members voting to support it. Your Lordships will see that Clause 4(5) states:
	"No order is to be made under this section unless the Secretary of State has consulted the Welsh Ministers about it".
	There is nothing like that in Scotland. The Scottish Parliament controls this issue. Why should the Secretary of State consult not the Assembly itself but the Welsh Ministers about the important issue of varying the date of the election?
	Similarly, Amendment No. 11 would replace "Secretary of State" in Clause 5(1) with "Presiding Officer". Amendment No. 12 makes it clear that the resolution of the Assembly is passed on a vote in which the number of Assembly Members voting in favour of it is not less than two thirds of the total number of Assembly "members voting", as opposed to "seats". Amendment No. 13 would replace "Secretary of State" with "Presiding Officer" in Clause 5(4). The Government ought to trust the Presiding Officer in Wales to fulfil precisely the same functions as the Presiding Officer in Scotland. I beg to move.

Lord Crickhowell: When I spoke to Amendment No. 1, I said that I had a certain amount of sympathy with the amendment that would be moved later on this very point. It seems extraordinary that the Secretary of State has to be involved in this process. Looking at the Explanatory Notes, I suppose that the Government will point out that if the Secretary of State is involved, an order must be laid before Parliament and is subject to being annulled by resolution of either House of Parliament. But that is not a compelling argument. If the Presiding Officer acts within the limited arrangements that are proposed for changing the date and the matter is approved by the Assembly, is it really necessary for Parliament to intervene and approve or for the Secretary of State to be involved? We are entitled at least to a pretty clear explanation of why we have to go down this route and why the Assembly cannot be trusted to deal with a matter of this kind.

Lord Davies of Oldham: The short answer is because we are considering an emergency situation. The date on which the elections take place is established. If a variation were to occur, it would do so only because of extreme circumstances. It might fall during some kind of national emergency; it might be a national day of mourning. There might be some necessity for variation. The Secretary of State would not normally vary the date of an Assembly general election. This provision would enable him to do so when the ordinary circumstances in which the election would be fulfilled according to law had to be varied because of some national difficulty. Some action would therefore need to be taken by the executive.
	We are talking about a limited period of time and very limited variation. The problem is that it might not be practicable in those circumstances to proceed by Order in Council. Since the need would arise at short notice, it would have to be acted upon swiftly. It is not always possible for Orders in Council to be made at very short notice. Yet the very concept that we have here is an emergency change within a very limited number of weeks to the normal process of the election of the Assembly.
	Of course, I recognise sensitivities. I recognise the anxiety of the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, which he put forward at Second Reading and already twice today. I have no doubt that he may present arguments in future about certain powers of the Secretary of State. On this issue, I hope that he will accept that we merely seek to cope with the short-term limited and emergency situation.

Lord Crickhowell: I indicated that it was precisely because we were dealing with a limited situation that it could be left. The Minister's explanation and excuse was that there might be a problem in timing of getting Orders in Council. But might there not be a difficulty in laying an order before Parliament which is subject to being annulled by a resolution of either House of Parliament? For example, what happens if Parliament is not sitting? Will it be more difficult to proceed under the arrangements proposed by the Liberal Democrat amendment than by the proposals in the Bill?

Lord Davies of Oldham: With regard to the fundamental issue of an extraordinary general election, the noble Lord will recognise that the powers are in the hands of the Assembly. The Secretary of State has no discretion on an extraordinary general election. If it is because of political breakdown and the government of Wales, under the National Assembly's provisions, are in difficulties, the Secretary of State has no discretion on the matter. If the Assembly either votes by a two-thirds majority of all Members to dissolve itself or if it fails to nominate a First Minister, which would be a definition of crisis and a failure of government, he must propose a date for a poll to take place. That relates to Amendments Nos. 11 and 13.
	Amendments Nos. 8 and 9 relate to the emergency position when the ordinary election would take place, but there are difficulties in meeting the precise date because of emergency. Then the executive would need to act. I maintain that it is a power that is bound to be retained by the executive in those terms to vary the date of the election. I do not see how in other terms we could guarantee that effective action could be taken within a very limited time framework. We would be recognising that to postpone an election in emergency circumstances of this kind would inevitably be postponement on the basis of a very limited timescale.

Lord Thomas of Gresford: I found that answer extraordinarily puzzling. First, Clause 5 has the procedure for Her Majesty to make an Order in Council for an extraordinary general election. Why is that said to be a slower way of proceeding than the laying of a statutory instrument, even though it is subject to the negative procedure, before Parliament? Nothing could happen during the period that a negative resolution could be laid against it. There would be bound to be a delay if you lay a statutory instrument before, presumably, both Houses of Parliament, which would lie on the Table for at least 14 days. It may be longer: I am not sure of the precise time limit involved. I do not understand that. The machinery of using the Order in Council is in Clause 5. Why is it not in Clause 4?
	Before I decide what to do with this amendment, I invite the Minister to address why it is different in Scotland. That is the other thing which I do not understand. Why in Scotland is it the Presiding Officer who makes the proposal for Her Majesty to make a proclamation under the Scottish Seal in relation to the change of the day of an ordinary general election? Why is it the Presiding Officer who approaches Her Majesty for a proclamation under the Scottish Seal if he wants it, or if the Assembly or Parliament want an extraordinary general election? What is the difference? If it is possible in Scotland, all the arguments advanced by the Minister against my amendment fall. There are two glaring inconsistencies in what the Minister has said and I invite him to respond.

Lord Davies of Oldham: I am grateful to the noble Lord for that invitation. Again, if an order has to be made in emergency circumstances, it is not the case that the negative procedure for the passing of such an order by both Houses of Parliament is necessary. Of course it is necessary to validate it, but the order would be acted upon. It would need to be because it would be defined as having taken place in exceptional circumstances where it was necessary for prompt action to be taken to change the date of the election. The noble Lord will recognise that we have to have such a provision. Of course it is unlikely that it will ever be used, but we need a provision whereby it could be, otherwise we could be in a situation where a designated election day is established but circumstances would inhibit a proper election being held. The noble Lord is merely indicating that there should be no way for such an issue to be resolved.

Lord Crickhowell: The Minister is getting into a worse tangle than ever. He has not attempted to answer my first intervention by saying that it would apply to extraordinary situations as set out in the next clause. But I keep reading out the Government's own notes on the Government of Wales Bill. He has now said that the Secretary of State may have to act quickly and that he would not have to put the order before Parliament; if necessary he could simply lay it. But paragraph 48 of the Explanatory Notes makes the position absolutely clear:
	"Before making an Order under this clause, the Secretary of State must first consult the Welsh Ministers and an Order must be laid before Parliament and is subject to being annulled by resolution of either House of Parliament".
	Either the Minister is wrong or the notes on the clauses are wrong. The Committee is entitled to know which.

Lord Davies of Oldham: The noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, will recognise that of course it would be practicable to do both. First, it is possible to consult Welsh Ministers, and that obligation is made clear in the Bill. Secondly, it is possible to lay the order. What may not be possible, depending on the circumstances that obtain, is for it to follow full parliamentary process. But we are talking here about a variation within a very limited framework contingent on emergency circumstances of some kind. I therefore find it difficult to understand why it is not recognised that it is only under such circumstances that executive action would need to be taken.

Lord Thomas of Gresford: What about Scotland?

Lord Davies of Oldham: I have not come to the Dispatch Box with full details on the position in Scotland. However, I want to emphasise the fact that the Scottish Parliament is different from the Welsh Assembly and in these emergency provisions we reflect differences in powers between the two assemblies. However, we are talking here about a power being taken forward from the existing Government of Wales Act and we see no reason why it needs to be changed. It refers to limited circumstances in which effective executive action would seem to the Government to be obviously necessary. In Amendments Nos. 8 and 9 we are not talking about the general provisions governing Welsh elections, either for the Assembly in the normal course of events or where an extraordinary general election has to take place. In that circumstance, the Welsh Assembly, by a two-thirds majority, would actually take the decision.

Lord Thomas of Gresford: I remain in a state of confusion. I do not believe that the Minister, with the greatest respect, has given an adequate explanation of this anomaly. I do not think it is enough to say it is in the Government of Wales Act already and therefore has to be carried over to this Bill because that is what we are here to do. We are here to look at what is wrong with the Government of Wales Act and to update it; to advance it and look at its machinery once more. While I seek to withdraw the amendment at this stage I shall certainly return to it on Report and, no doubt, we can further consider it then. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 9 and 10 not moved.]
	Clause 4 agreed to.
	Clause 5 [Extraordinary general elections]:
	[Amendments Nos. 11 to 13 not moved.]
	Clause 5 agreed to.
	Clause 6 [Voting at general elections]:
	[Amendments Nos. 14 to 15E not moved.]
	Clause 6 agreed to.
	Clause 7 [Candidates at general elections]:
	[Amendments Nos. 15F and 15G not moved.]

Lord Livsey of Talgarth: moved Amendment No. 16:
	Page 4, line 30, at end insert—
	"( ) The regional returning officer shall publish the list of candidates submitted by each political party for each electoral region."

Lord Livsey of Talgarth: Amendment No. 16 has a very straightforward objective, to establish open lists for Assembly elections. The amendment states that the regional returning officer shall publish the list of candidates submitted by each political party for each electoral region. The implication is that the candidates will not be ranked in order, but will nevertheless be on a list of candidates from the party. The virtue of open lists is that the electorate actually decide who they wish to elect. This is a method of election used by a number of countries which function on the basis of additional member systems. The different members elected are absolutely clear. They have been the choice of the electorate. This is a very transparent method of conducting a list system. The electorate could, if they wish, for example, choose on the basis of gender. Maybe they would prefer a female candidate, or a member of a political party who has a viewpoint that may not comply with the strictest interpretation of the party. If they want to elect a younger or older person because they feel this would be the right choice in the circumstances, they can. The electorate hold the decisions in their hands and not the party. We believe that this very important principle would extend democracy for the electorate. Indeed it might actually encourage them to participate in elections more, which would be a very good thing. I beg to move.

Lord Davies of Oldham: I was singularly unhelpful on the previous group of amendments so I hope to be a little more positive on this one. With regard to Amendment No. 16, we already provide for such publication in paragraph 17 of Schedule 6 to the National Assembly for Wales (Representation of the People) Order 2003. This kind of detail is normally included in secondary legislation. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, will look at this with the keenest of interest and, given that during discussion of the previous group of amendments I was upbraided for my limited perspective on the Scottish Parliament, he might just like to take on board that both Scottish and European elections are covered in exactly the same way—not in primary legislation but in subordinate legislation. The point is taken and accepted. We already have it in place.
	On Amendment No. 20 we are convinced of that case too. The difference is that we do not think this is the Bill in which this problem should be tackled. This probably relates to the case at the last general election when one constituency's results were delayed for a considerable period because of the death of a candidate. We clearly need to address the issue and that is exactly what we are doing. Clause 28 of the Electoral Administration Bill deals with the death of a candidate at a parliamentary election. Where the election has to be countermanded or abandoned, it shortens the delay before a fresh election can be held. It also tackles that problem that we all recognise existed. That applies to Parliament, but my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Wales plans to apply broadly similar changes in an order that he will bring forward for approval later this year under Section 11 of the Government of Wales Act. The order will update the rules for conduct of Assembly elections to tackle this problem which, although has mercifully not affected elections in Wales thus far, we had warning from the general election of the distress that it can cause all round. We therefore intend to remedy the problem, both in relation to parliamentary elections and elections for the Welsh Assembly.

Lord Livsey of Talgarth: I listened carefully to what the Minister said and I will have to read his response in some detail and evaluate it. There seemed to be some optimism in the way that he approached the issue. I will accept what he says and the spirit in which he said it, but I will need to look in some detail at his response which referred to a number of issues and clauses which I would clearly wish to interpret. The other amendments that are put forward are related to Amendment No. 17. I am sure that we will have a full debate on that. Without more ado I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Geddes: Before calling Amendment No. 17, I must advise the Committee that if it is agreed to I will not be able to call Amendments Nos. 17A to 19 inclusive due to pre-emption.

Lord Roberts of Conwy: moved Amendment No. 17:
	Page 4, line 32, leave out subsections (5) and (6) and insert—
	"(5) The list must not include a person—
	(a) who is included on any other list submitted for the Assembly electoral region or any list submitted for another Assembly electoral region,
	(b) who is an individual candidate to be an Assembly member for the Assembly electoral region or another Assembly electoral region,
	(c) who is a candidate to be the Assembly member for an Assembly constituency which is not included in the Assembly electoral region, or
	(d) who is a candidate to be the Assembly member for an Assembly constituency included in the Assembly electoral region but is not a candidate of the party.
	(6) A person may not be an individual candidate to be an Assembly member for the Assembly electoral region if he is—
	(a) included on a list submitted by a registered political party for the Assembly electoral region or another Assembly electoral region,
	(b) an individual candidate to be an Assembly member for another Assembly electoral region,
	(c) a candidate to be the Assembly member for an Assembly constituency which is not included in the Assembly electoral region, or
	(d) a candidate of any registered political party to be the Assembly member for an Assembly constituency included in the Assembly electoral region."

Lord Roberts of Conwy: As the Bill stands, constituency candidates will not be able to stand as regional list candidates and vice versa. The aim of Amendment No. 17 is to preserve the status quo. As far as I can make out, only the Government and the Labour Party wish to change the system in the way proposed—all the other political parties and a string of organisations, ranging from the Electoral Commission to the Electoral Reform Society and the Arbuthnott commission, are opposed to, or critical of, the change. The case for the change has not been proven. There has not been sufficient consultation on it.
	The origins of the pressure for change are well described in the Richard commission report and lie in the rivalry between the constituency and the regional list Members of the Assembly. Of the 20 elected under AMS in 2003, 17 stood as first-past-the-post candidates—although I am not absolutely sure about the figure, because I have seen 18 quoted. Many electors would take the view that competition between the two kinds of members to serve electors is no bad thing and keeps both on their toes, but the sitting constituency members do not relish having rival regional list members breathing down their necks as well as the usual constituency candidates, of which the regional list member may have been one prior to the Bill. But that situation will continue, even if the Government's proposed change comes into effect. The only difference will be that the list member will not also be a failed constituency candidate. There will be nothing to stop the list member standing as a constituency candidate the next time round—it is only a matter of time.
	What is the real motivation behind the change that the Government propose? The starting point is that Labour has no regional list members. Also relevant is the fact that its hold on the Assembly Government is precarious, as we have heard, and it is totally dependent on its constituency members, some of whom have slender majorities. They must therefore be protected at all costs. The prohibition of dual candidacy strengthens the position of Labour members in their constituencies by weakening the minority parties' attempts to undermine them from a position of strength on the regional list. To put that another way, Labour immunity in the constituencies that they occupy is improved if they are walled in against attack from regional members. Furthermore, the minority parties have to find more candidates, and more numbers usually means less quality.
	Of course, the Labour Party will never admit that the purpose of the change is to strengthen its own side and to weaken its opponents, so we are presented with a variety of bogus populist arguments. People, it is said, do not understand how losers under the first-past-the-post vote can be elected under the additional member system with its separate vote. The White Paper states:
	"In the Government's view, for losing candidates to be able to become Assembly Members regardless of their constituency election results both devalues the integrity of the electoral system in the eyes of the public and acts as a disincentive to vote in constituency elections".
	Where is the evidence for those assertions, and how will the Government's amendment restore the integrity of the system and encourage people to vote?
	The most damning indictment of the Government's case for the amendment is the fact that they have set their hearts and minds firmly against making a similar change in Scotland, where the AMS system also operates. They said so in this House, when replying to the Second Reading debate on the Bill proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes of Cumnock, on 3 March. That debate followed soon after the publication of the Arbuthnott commission report, which disposed very effectively of the arguments against AMS, as my noble friend Lord Strathclyde pointed out in the course of the debate. But Arbuthnott went further, saying:
	"Preventing dual candidacy would be undemocratic. It would place an unnecessary restriction on the democratic rights of individual candidates, parties and local electors to have as unrestricted a choice as possible in an election".
	That is a very serious charge from a very serious quarter, which I hope the Government will answer.
	There is also a human rights dimension to this. They cannot say yes to that statement in Scotland and no in Wales. Such blatant inconsistency is pretty well intolerable. The Government should not be allowed to get away with it.
	Speaking of the Arbuthnott report reminds me that a quotation from the report is included in the Government's collection of statements supporting their opposition to dual candidacy. The thrust of the report as a whole is in quite the opposite direction. We were fortunate at Second Reading that the noble Lord, Lord Steel of Aikwood, who was also twice quoted in the same document, was present in the Chamber to assert that his statement had been taken out of context and should not have been used to buttress the Government's case. The noble Lord said:
	"It is a bit of a sleight of hand that I should be quoted in aid of a provision which I do not agree with".—[Official Report, 22/3/06; col. 263.]
	I am sure that his view would be reiterated by the authors of the Arbuthnott report.
	Another much quoted document in this context is the Labour Party manifesto. But of course there are two references, one of which relates to the UK, referring briefly to Wales, and the other more expansively to Wales. The UK manifesto reference is to,
	"a reformed structure and electoral system to make the exercise of Assembly responsibilities clearer and more accountable to the public".
	The Welsh manifesto goes beyond talk of responsibility and accountability to say that alongside these changes,
	"we will prevent candidates from standing on both the list and in a constituency in order to make all candidates genuinely accountable to the electorate and to end Assembly Members being elected via the backdoor even when they have already been rejected by the voters".
	The wording echoes, of course, the New Brunswick Commission on Legislative Democracy, quoted by the Government in their compendium of quotations. It shows a total failure to understand the nature of the AMS system that the Government themselves set up under the 1998 Act.
	The Government will argue that we should respect the inviolability of their manifesto and will probably accuse us of contravening the Salisbury convention if we do not respect it. However, I have made enough of a case for the Government to answer and know that many other noble Lords will want to lend their support to my case. I beg to move.

Lord Livsey of Talgarth: I very much support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy. He has stated all the reasons why the AMS system is much preferable to the one proposed in the Bill, which denies dual candidacy. The origins of this would seem to be that in one constituency in Wales, Clwyd West, three out of four of the losers were elected under the regional list system. However, that is the only example in the whole of Wales where that actually occurred. This seems to be one of the reasons stated as to why dual candidacies should be prohibited, but the whole weight of informed opinion is in favour of, at the very least, retaining the existing system. The Electoral Commission has in fact slammed the proposals in a focused and logical way. The Electoral Reform Society, which is extremely well informed on these issues and practises them, also cannot accept them. We must realise that the additional-member system is going on in different countries in Europe; and British/UK constitutional lawyers designed the system in West Germany. No one can say that West Germany has not been a successful democracy since the Second World War. It has carried out a system similar to that which has been used in the Welsh Assembly. Reference has been made to the Arbuthnott report, which supports dual candidacy. My noble friend Lord Steel was undoubtedly quoted out of context, as the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy, said. In fact, my noble friend Lord Steel stated that he advocates the single transferable vote and he said so in his intervention at Second Reading.

Lord Foulkes of Cumnock: May I quote the noble Lord, Lord Steel, directly from his Edinburgh Book Festival lecture on 18 August 2003? He said:
	"The system as operated . . . has led to a confusing and expensive proliferation of 'parliamentary' offices throughout the country. In at least one town there are four. They have become a thinly disguised subsidy from the taxpayer for the local party machines . . . In my view they are a serious waste of public money".
	That is clear: that is not out of context. It is very much in context and it is very true.

Lord Livsey of Talgarth: In response to that intervention, I have no doubt that my noble friend Lord Steel said that. However, I believe that the noble Lord is quoting him out of context, because my noble friend Lord Steel said at Second Reading that he was a supporter of the single transferable vote system and he was then addressing the situation in relation to that.

Lord Foulkes of Cumnock: With respect to the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, we are not talking about the single transferable vote. We are talking about dual candidacy under the AMS system.

Lord Livsey of Talgarth: I realise what the noble Lord is saying, but I know that my noble friend Lord Steel was coming from the context of STV and we probably cannot agree about that. I therefore terminate my comments on Amendment No. 17 by saying that we support it.

Lord Foulkes of Cumnock: I hope that the Committee will forgive me if I make a short intervention in a debate on Wales, albeit it as a Scotsman. As the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy, said, I have a Bill before the House which we might have heard today if the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser of Carmyllie—I was going to say "my noble friend Lord Fraser of Carmyllie"; he is my friend in other contexts—had not tabled some amendments. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy, that there are two ways of obtaining consistency on the issue. I am proposing one way as well. That is bringing Scotland in line with what is proposed for Wales, which seems eminently sensible. The noble Lord, Lord Livsey, from whom we have just heard—

Lord Roberts of Conwy: Why are the Government not seeing sense either in the way that the noble Lord described or in the other way?

Lord Foulkes of Cumnock: I can tell the noble Lord that I am working hard on the Government. I keep on working on them; I have my ways and I will find a different way. I return to the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, who said that the weight of informed opinion in Wales is in favour of the amendment and against dual candidacy. On 15 June 2005—relatively recently—it was said:
	"I am sure that many in Wales will welcome . . . the removal of the absurd dual candidacy opportunity".—[Official Report, 15/6/06; col. 1217.]
	I could not have put it better myself, but it was not me who said that; it was the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, the former leader of the Welsh Liberal Democrats. Obviously he is not informed opinion in Wales.

Lord Livsey of Talgarth: I must intervene: we are almost becoming like the House of Commons—I do not want that. I did not say "informed opinion in Wales"; that is the first point. I said informed opinion such as the Electoral Commission. I went on to quote the Electoral Reform Society as well. I know that in his critique my noble friend Lord Carlile was coming from the same direction as my noble friend Lord Steel.

Lord Anderson of Swansea: Why is that Liberal Democrat Peers are to be so often misquoted out of context?

Lord Foulkes of Cumnock: They can speak only for themselves. I was going to come again to the noble Lord, Lord Steel of Aikwood. He made a considered lecture at the Edinburgh Book Festival on 18 August 2003, in which he said:
	"Quite the most distasteful and irritating part of my job as Presiding Officer was dealing with complaints against list Members' behaviour from constituency MSPs, Westminster MPs and local authorities . . . I could not understand at first why we had such problems"—
	I know that some of my noble friends here who were MPs can understand why—
	"until it dawned on me that what some were determined to do was misuse their position to run a permanent 4-year campaign as candidate for a particular constituency. In most parliaments you do not have Members sitting in the same chamber or in committees who are going to be election opponents, and it does not make for a good working atmosphere".
	I hope that I am not quoting him out of context when he said that. Then an old friend of mine, Donald Gorrie, who was a list MSP himself—a Liberal Democrat list MSP, in case anyone is misunderstanding—said,
	"The list system creates two different kinds of member—constituency and list. The constituency members feel that they carry the burden of the work involved in helping individual constituents and local groups"—
	and they do—
	"They complain that the list members either swan around cherry-picking some local issues or camp in their constituency, posing as an alternative constituency member".
	I say "hear, hear" to Donald Gorrie, whom I have known for many years. He is right that cherry-picking and posing as a constituency Member is what takes place.
	I will quote one of the best revelations about the way in which the system is misused for party political purposes. It did not on this occasion come from the Conservatives or from the Liberal Democrats but from a leaked memo from Leanne Wood, a Plaid Cymru Member. They use this system—and the SNP in Scotland are exactly the same—to their party political advantage. Leanne Wood said,
	"Each regional AM has an office budget and a staff budget of some considerable size. Consideration should be given to the location of their office—where would it be best for the region? Are there any target seats . . . within the region?".
	Then she says,
	"We need to be thinking much more creatively as to how we better use staff budgets for furthering the aims of the party"—
	in this case, Plaid Cymru.
	"[Regional AMs] need not be constrained by constituency casework"—
	they do not have to worry about that; it is done by the constituency members—
	"and events and can be more choosy about their engagements, only attending events which further the party's cause".
	How can that be a good Member of the Assembly, when all they are doing is attending events that further the party cause? She goes on to say,
	"On receipt of every invitation, ask 'How can my attendance at this event further the aims of Plaid Cymru?'. If the answer is 'very little' or 'not at all', then a pro forma letter of decline should be in order".
	That is the way in which the system is misused. I do not understand with respect to the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, and the phalanx of Conservatives who will follow him into the Chamber, why they are so keen to give that power and political advantage to Plaid Cymru. I say even more strongly to the Liberal Democrats that, given their position, I do not understand why they are so keen.

Lord Roberts of Conwy: I refer the noble Lord to a quotation from Mr Peter Hain at Second Reading of the Bill in the Commons, when he said that a ban on dual candidacy,
	"would not stop [list AMs] setting up constituency offices".—[Official Report, Commons, 9/1/06; col. 43.]

Lord Foulkes of Cumnock: I agree that it would not stop them; the noble Lord, and, even more, the Secretary of State for Wales are right in that. However, it would constrain them substantially. It would really limit their ability to do what we are discussing. Even if you cannot stop them completely, it is right to limit them. But perhaps I have it wrong. Perhaps the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats want to do exactly the same as Leanne Wood. Perhaps that is why they have tabled the amendment and are pressing it.
	I want to deal with Arbuthnott. I have made my next point before. When I said it previously there was a sharp intake of breath. I have noticed that happen once or twice when I make speeches in this House. Arbuthnott in his conclusions did not reflect the evidence that he received. This is one example of a case where he did not do so. Arbuthnott himself admits that,
	"many interviewees had specific concerns about the list system when provided with background information on how the system worked . . . the main frustration lay with . . . individuals who lost in the constituency vote being elected on the list. Some interviewees described this as an 'escape route' for losers".
	People's views were canvassed. A man from Glasgow said:
	"If someone stands in a certain area you should get elected in that area. It's not fair that they lose and get forced on another area. They never voted for them. If they don't get in a certain place then tough".
	Another man from Glasgow said:
	"If someone wants to get put in as a person for the Glasgow area then they should hold a separate election instead of having an additional list".
	Arbuthnott and his committee ignored a lot of evidence that was presented to them. I know why that is. I know most of the members of the committee. I know John Laurie, a Liberal Democrat, and a number of others who pushed very hard for the recommendations, even if the evidence did not support them, because they have particularly strong views.
	Finally, I pray in aid the Electoral Commission. I have some worries about the power that we have given to it—my party's Government have done that—a non-elected body, some of the members of which have not even sought election and do not understand elections in the way that those of us who have fought and, occasionally, won elections understand them. We should not accept what the Electoral Commission says as gospel. We certainly should not accept what the Electoral Reform Society says as gospel. It is set up to argue a particular case in a particular way for proportional representation. It is almost a wholly owned subsidiary of the Liberal Democrats so far as its representation, issues and policy are concerned.
	I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy, who I know is a sensible person, and some of his colleagues, will think again about the amendment and will consider withdrawing it. It is not in the interests of democracy and, ultimately, it is not in the interests of his party or our party, but more importantly it is not in the interests of either Wales or Scotland.

Lord Crickhowell: I am sure that we have all enjoyed the exchanges between the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes of Cumnock, and the Liberal Democrat and Plaid Cymru parties. However, I was a little surprised when he attacked Plaid Cymru for furthering its party's cause. I cannot believe that the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes of Cumnock, has ever sought to further his party's cause. Of course, he has; he has spent a whole lifetime doing it. He attacks the Electoral Reform Society and the Electoral Commission, but I am bound to say that if I wanted to hear a balanced view, I would want to hear the views of those two bodies quite as much as the views of the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes of Cumnock.
	Although it has been referred to on a number of occasions already in this debate, we need to be reminded again that almost all the independent organisations of weight have come down against the Government. I refer to the two organisations I have just mentioned and, most effectively of all, the Arbuthnott commission in relation to the Scottish Parliament.
	The Select Committee on the Constitution of this House referred to all those bodies and pointed out that,
	"the bar on dual candidacy has very few international precedents. On the contrary, dual candidacy is a common and accepted feature in proportional systems across the world".
	Professor Hazell, director of the constitution unit within University College London, has described the Government's alteration to the electoral arrangements as,
	"nasty, parochial and seemingly driven by partisan motives".
	Mr Stoner, the parliamentary officer of the Electoral Reform Society wrote to thank me for my remarks on the subject at Second Reading. He wrote that the society has been,
	"most concerned at how the Government have sought to justify their proposal by claiming a cross-party consensus on an issue that has proved controversial in the extreme".
	The comments of Sir John Arbuthnott's commission on boundary differences and voting systems in Scotland are, to my mind, devastating. The commission took the trouble to look very closely at the Welsh arguments. It seems to me that its conclusions are devastating in the context of both the opinions of Mr Hain in Wales and of the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes of Cumnock, in Scotland. Having read the arguments of both and heard the noble Lord advance his case on an earlier occasion in this House, it seems to me that the Arbuthnott commission comes out on top. The commission states:
	"However, the Commission is not convinced that there is any evidence to support the claims made regarding these perceived problems. There is no survey evidence to suggest that dual candidacy is an issue for voters, or a disincentive to their participation in the political process".
	The noble Lord, Lord Foulkes of Cumnock, quoted a few individuals, but a few individuals who express views but do not understand the principles on which the electoral system is based are hardly evidence of a compelling weight.
	The commission has serious concerns about the impact such a ban would have. It points out that, as the Richard commission had noted,
	"it may encourage parties, particularly small ones, not to field strong candidates in constituency seats, where they have less chance of success, keeping them instead for the region where they would be more likely to be elected. This could have a negative impact on the quality of constituency contests and unduly favour incumbent candidates".
	The commission advances other arguments. It points to examples elsewhere and suggests that,
	"dual candidacy only seems problematic to some people here because of the legacy of constituency representation within British political culture and the hegemony which this has secured for some parties. Candidates coming in second or third place who are then elected through the regional list are only 'losers' in the context of a first past the post, 'winner takes all', electoral system. This logic does not sit well within a proportional system and introducing it devalues and undermines the concept of proportionality".
	My noble friend Lord Roberts of Conwy has already quoted the commission's conclusion that,
	"preventing dual candidacy would be undemocratic and . . . . that it would place 'an unnecessary restriction on the democratic rights of potential candidates, parties and local electors to have as unrestricted a choice as possible in an election'".
	In the Welsh Assembly committee on the Bill, all the parties except Labour voted against the clause as it stands in the Bill at present. When this House finds that almost all independent opinion expressed by the Electoral Commission, the Electoral Reform Society, the Arbuthnott commission and the Richard commission is against a change in electoral arrangements, and that it is opposed by the other political parties, surely it is entitled to say, "No, we cannot allow that". Here I take up the issue that was touched on by my noble friend Lord Roberts of Conwy. I go further and say that we have a clear duty to prevent abuse of this kind. Surely by far the most important function of this House is to act as the final guardian of constitutional integrity and electoral propriety.
	The Government will argue that this was a manifesto commitment. But I reject the argument that that prevents us acting. It cannot, surely, be suggested that any party is free to fix the electoral system to its own advantage, just because it makes a reference to it somewhere in its manifesto. Mr Blair is always telling us that he has a great deal of unfinished business. If his party were to declare in its next manifesto that he had so much to do that he intended to extend the life of the next Parliament to enable him to complete his great work, it would surely be the duty of this House to say, "No, you will not. You will continue to have to face the electorate at the appropriate time". The argument is exactly the same. Here we are faced with a highly controversial change in electoral arrangements, when the kind of consensus that should always exist when changing electoral arrangements simply does not exist. I am sure that we should stand our ground and say that we cannot permit it to happen. The Minister, who has already said that change should not take place in Scotland, should acknowledge that his arguments apply equally and as strongly in Wales. I urge the House to support my noble friend's amendment.

Lord Roberts of Llandudno: I do not think I have ever heard a better argument for single transferable votes than the one we had from the Labour Benches and from the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, this evening. If he is in favour of any sort of proportionality, if he then rejects the present system, surely he must walk in the direction of STV.
	Let us look at the argument made that the list candidates should not also be constituency candidates, because you have offices, and so on, and organisations within the regions that might be campaigning within an opponent's constituency. What you will have on the list will be different names from those in the constituencies. If you take the quotation from the Plaid Cymru Member of the Assembly, however, the campaigning element is still there. The promotion of their party interests is still there, because all you have is a change in the names—the prohibition of the constituency candidate also being a list candidate. The Government's proposal today and the noble Lord's proposal for Scotland do not solve the problem. The problem, as we mentioned earlier this evening, is that we have not yet defined the role of the regional Members, compared to that of the constituency Members. It is our failing.
	I will be brief and I will not go back to the arguments that we had at Second Reading. So I suggest that we do listen to the reports that we mentioned: Arbuthnott, Richard, the Electoral Commission and the Electoral Reform Society. Even public opinion polls see no problem at all in dual candidacy. Perhaps they do not have time to do anything else except tinker with an electoral system. This House would be doing a great service by voting to say, "Yes, of course". The rights of the individual demand it. Ordinary electoral consideration to get the best people into the Parliament in Scotland and the Assembly in Wales also should allow it.
	I will conclude with this. Last week, there was a list of working Peers. Now, some of us did not win an ordinary election for the other House, but we landed here. Last week, the list of working Peers gave us four or five people who had lost their seats in the general election. I hope to embrace them because I was previously one of them. The argument you give is not an argument that I can accept.

Lord Foulkes of Cumnock: Would the noble Lord not agree that by putting them here it makes absolutely sure that they will never stand again for the other place?

Noble Lords: Oh!

Lord Roberts of Llandudno: I conclude my remarks.

Lord Davies of Oldham: We have had an interesting debate. Of course, the main principles of the debate revolve around Amendment No. 17. Therefore, with the leave of the Committee, I will address my preliminary remarks to the other amendments. On behalf of the Government, I will seek to resist those principles.
	Noble Lords will recognise that Amendments Nos. 18 and 19, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, go further than reinstating the status quo with regards to dual candidacy. These amendments would remove the bars that already exist in the Government of Wales Act 1998. These amendments would allow a candidate to stand for election in a constituency that is not included in the region for which he or she appears on a list, and also to represent different parties for the constituency and for the region. This is not allowed under the 1998 Act, and for good reasons indeed. Allowing a candidate to stand in any region and constituency, and to represent more than one political party, would surely undermine our electoral system. I hope the House will recognise that we are strongly against Amendments Nos. 18 and 19.
	Amendment No. 22, in the name of the noble Lords, Lord Roberts of Conwy, Lord Henley and Lord Crickhowell, also goes back to the Government's commitment to banning dual candidacy and the integrity of our electoral system. Standing as a constituency candidate in a by-election, failing to get elected, and then returning to a party's list to fill a regional vacancy would, in our view, once again clearly be seen as an example of a candidate trying to get in through the back door. That is our principle objection to Amendment No. 17.
	The noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy, is right. Of course I will quote the manifesto commitment, because we made it quite explicit. The Labour Party does not produce a Labour manifesto for the United Kingdom; it produces a manifesto for England, for Wales and for Scotland. Our Welsh manifesto said:
	"We will prevent from standing on both the list and inner constituency, in order to make all candidates accountable to the electorate, and to end Assembly Members being elected via the backdoor even when they have already been rejected by the voters".
	That is a manifesto commitment. The argument that I have had against it this evening is that this House, under the arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, is better equipped to defend the liberties and the rights of the British people with regard to elections. Which part of legislation conveys that position upon this House? Is it the Parliament Act 1911, which sought to restrain this House after the democratic other place had enacted legislation and which the people had endorsed by election manifesto in the election? Does the Parliament Act 1948 convey this position upon this House, when again it is was quite clear that both the people and a government with a large majority sought to restrain the powers of this House? Or does the noble Lord say that because, at last, in the 21st century, Labour has the same number of votes in this House as the Conservative Party—and that is all the Government have; an equality of votes with the Conservative Party, which has enjoyed a huge majority of votes ever since this House was created—this House, having the two main parties in equality, can take upon itself the right to be the arbiter or defender of the British people's rights with regard to election? I maintain that that argument is shot through with fallacy. Of course it is important that this House plays its proper role as a revising Chamber, which we seek to do as fully and as ably as we can. This is a forum for considerable debate on the issues before the nation, but there are limits on the powers of this House which are properly there, and they are cast both in convention—reference has been made to the Salisbury convention—and particularly in manifesto commitments. We made that commitment in the manifesto, and we did so because we are dealing with an issue of principle.

Baroness Elles: I am most grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. I remind him that the manifesto contained the provision that identity cards would be voluntary for five years, but the Government sought to change that to make them compulsory and disregarded their own manifesto. Will he kindly withdraw his statements that the Labour manifesto is always followed?

Lord Davies of Oldham: My contention from this Dispatch Box is not to say that this Government any more than any other government are able to fulfil every line of their manifesto commitments. My heavens, we would be living in a strange political climate if we thought that all we had to do was to write manifestos and they would easily become the law of the day within the time that a government are given. Manifesto commitments change according to all sorts of pressures and changes in society and change in relationship to debate both in the other place and here, and rightly so. But when legislation is produced that directly and accurately reflects a manifesto commitment, there is a proper constraint on opposition from this House, and it is legitimate that it should be so. We are seeking to deal with an abuse; a blot on the electoral arrangements. The Committee will be aware of the Clwyd West case in 2003, where three of the four defeated constituency candidates were nevertheless elected to the Assembly via their party's respective lists.

Lord Thomas of Gresford: Does the noble Lord appreciate that every word he says is creating a difference between the list Member and the constituency Member and is putting the constituency Member first, with the list Member creeping in through the back door? Was it not his Government who decided to have a list system and his Government who have consistently opposed STV, which is a much fairer system?

Lord Davies of Oldham: We have already had a debate on STV, and we have already identified its manifest imperfections. Under the system that we brought into operation for the Welsh Assembly, a problem occurred in Clwyd West in the election to the Welsh Assembly, and it is right that we should address ourselves to that, having presented to the Welsh people a clear indication that we intended to tackle that problem. Clwyd West is not the only occurrence; of the 20 Assembly Members elected via the regional lists in the 2003 election, 16 stood unsuccessfully as constituency candidates in the same election.

Lord Crickhowell: It is not the only case. Does he agree that exactly the same situation exists in Scotland? Indeed, it has been well pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes of Cumnock, and the Arbuthnott committee. Some 83 per cent of those elected in Scotland were elected on the basis that he described. Is that why he is replying to the debate and not the noble Lord, Lord Evans of Temple Guiting, who has had to deal with the Scottish issue on previous occasions?

Lord Davies of Oldham: The reason why I am replying to the debate is that it is a high privilege to be asked to do so. I am coming to the Scottish position, because my noble friend Lord Foulkes is scarcely going to allow me to escape it. The Government are considering the Arbuthnott report. We do not think that the issue is cut and dried in quite the way that it has been presented by noble Lords on that side of the Committee this afternoon. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Foulkes, who introduced some balance into the argument on Arbuthnott. That is why we are considering the issue in great detail at present. Before Arbuthnott, we had identified the issue in Wales, and we had indicated to the people of Wales how we intended to tackle it. We are fulfilling that commitment.
	I make it absolutely clear that the abuse concerns more than three candidates in one area. The problem with regard to list candidates being successful after they had failed in the consistencies is a much wider issue than just those three candidates. It extends to 18 candidates in all, who were constituency candidates in the same election. For the electorate—the Clwyd case exemplified it in a dramatic and obvious way—it brings the electoral system into some disrepute.

Lord Norton of Louth: If it is a blot on the electoral arrangements in this country, why it is not a blot on the electoral arrangements in many other countries?

Lord Davies of Oldham: As the noble Lord will know, in one or two counties the issue is being addressed. I have already heard this afternoon that the reference to New Brunswick is not regarded as being absolutely convincing, but it is one illustration of democrats who think similarly to this Government on this problem. The noble Lord will recognise that there is no such thing as a pristine electoral system that solves all anomalies and all difficulties. It is right that where a particular problem occurs that gives considerable offence to an electorate and an abuse appears to have occurred, a government should seek to set that right. We could not have gone about that in a more exemplary fashion. The proposed ban on dual candidacy will correct those anomalies in the electoral system in Wales. It will remove the safety net of dual candidacy, which will make it harder for regional Members to use their position to target particular constituencies, and it will restore the right of voters to reject a particular constituency candidate.

Lord Roberts of Llandudno: Does that mean that the Government will also be introducing similar prohibitions against London Assembly Members and against Scottish Members? Or is the position different in London and Scotland?

Lord Davies of Oldham: We will address those issues in good time. I have already indicated to the noble Lord that we have not replied to the Arbuthnott report, which is a serious document that deserves serious consideration. We have not responded to that as yet, but in this Bill we are legislating with regard to Wales, because that is where a clear issue arose.
	The noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, said that the Government were bent on partisan activity and that all others were ranged against the Government. I do not think that we are being partisan; the reform will affect all parties equally. No party will gain or lose a single vote or seat in the Assembly as a result of this change. Three Ministers in the Welsh Assembly Government are currently in marginal seats. They will also lose the safety net that the list system would otherwise have provided. It will not do for noble Lords to suggest that the Government are taking through a narrow, partisan matter to look after their own in Wales. Some of the crucial people who serve the Labour Party in Wales will make the inevitable sacrifice and there will be no safety net for them.
	It will remove unfairness in the current system. In doing so, it will improve the electoral system. We maintain that the proposals in Clause 7 to prevent candidates standing both in a constituency and on a regional list will strengthen the integrity of the system. It puts the voters in charge by enabling them to choose successful candidates and reject unsuccessful candidates who cannot then arrive in the Assembly through the back door.
	On the basis of those arguments, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment. I recognise the genuineness of the views of the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, and the strength with which he has presented them. However, I ask him to recognise that we are not putting forward a casual clause in a Bill. We are fulfilling a clear, specific promise to the people of Wales on how we would deal with a problem identified in the elections for the Welsh Assembly in 2003. We are fulfilling that commitment through this legislation. We have the right and the obligation to do so. This House should tread carefully when such explicit commitments are being made by a properly elected Government.

Lord Roberts of Conwy: I am grateful to all who have participated in the debate. It is clear that there is a range of feelings in the Committee.
	I was particularly touched by the quotation given by my noble friend Lord Crickhowell from a very independent academic, Professor Robert Hazell, of the Constitution Unit of the London School of Economics. He referred to these proposals as, "nasty, spiteful and seemingly driven by partisan motives".
	When such a statement is made one looks to see what lies behind it. Jonathan Bradbury and Meg Russell gave evidence. They said:
	"Any mechanism that seeks to overcome problems generally experienced only by Labour Assembly Members, will also be open to being seen as partisan. It may be worth reminding Labour Assembly Members that whilst they may feel individual resentments at 'unfair' competition from list Assembly Members, the current electoral arrangements were created with their party's overall aim to remain the largest party".
	That is the crux of the issue. The system was set up by the Labour Government in the 1998 Act. They now have to change it in order to protect their own constituency members because they have no regional list members.

Lord Anderson of Swansea: If the aim had been to ensure the greatest Labour representation, that would have been done by having a total first-past-the-post system.

Lord Roberts of Conwy: I think that even the Labour Party would have been ashamed of creating such a system; and that is why it never did. It insisted upon a degree of proportionality but, of course, it may be regretting that now.
	We have heard a fair analysis of the arguments. We know what lies behind the Government's change in the Bill from the 1998 Act. It is their wish to protect their own sitting Members from attack, not only from regional list members and candidates but from anyone else, because they are in something of a fix and their long predominance in Wales is severely under threat. I shall test the opinion of the Committee.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 17) shall be agreed to?
	Their Lordships divided: Contents, 133; Not-Contents, 114.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.

Viscount Allenby of Megiddo: As the Committee has already been advised, due to pre-emption, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 17A to 19.

[Amendments Nos. 17A to 20 not moved.]
	Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.
	Clause 8 [Calculation of electoral region figures]:
	[Amendments Nos. 20A to 20R not moved.]
	Clause 8 agreed to.
	Clause 9 [Allocation of seats to electoral region members]:
	[Amendments Nos. 20S to 21 not moved.]
	Clause 9 agreed to.
	Clause 10 agreed to.
	Clause 11 [Electoral region vacancies]:
	[Amendments Nos. 21A to 22A not moved.]
	Clause 11 agreed to.
	Clause 12 [Entitlement to vote]:

Lord Livsey of Talgarth: moved Amendment No. 23:
	Page 8, line 14, at end insert—
	"(1A) For the purposes of subsection (1), section 2 of the Representation of the People Act 1983 (c. 2) (local government electors) shall have effect as if for subsection (1)(d) there were substituted—
	"(d) is of voting age (that is, 16 years or over)"."

Lord Livsey of Talgarth: We regard Amendment No. 23 as very important as it would mean a voting age of 16 years or over. That is the main point of the amendment. It is extremely important because we believe that the non-participation of young people in elections must be reversed. One reason for that is the increasing maturity of young people who, in their middle teens, very often are frustrated by not being able to participate in the political process. The amendment would give young people an increased interest in politics. I joined a political party at the age of 15. One reason was that the leader of the party was arguing for world government, which undoubtedly will not be achieved in my lifetime nor probably in my grandchildren's lifetime, but it is a worthy objective; the creation of a European Union—that was in 1950—and a parliament for Wales, which judging by the kind of debate that we have had today, possibly will now occur in my lifetime. We have been championing these causes for the past 50 years or so.
	If young people, and 16 year-olds in particular, are given the right the vote, then they will participate in the political process and develop the habit of voting. Indeed, many of us have seen, particularly when visiting schools and looking at mock elections, especially at the time of general elections, that young people are extremely keen on participating in the political process. Sometimes, when they reach their later teens, they are not motivated because earlier in their lives they have not developed the habit of voting. This amendment is an extremely worthy one, to achieve that aim for the Welsh Assembly.
	Amendment No. 25 is a tidying-up amendment and puts people involved in parliamentary service or in the employ of the Assembly Government on exactly the same footing as those in the Civil Service. It extends the list of those disqualified from being Assembly Members. I beg to move.

Lord Norton of Louth: I speak against the amendment, since I spoke against votes at 16 on the Electoral Administration Bill. I intend to be perfectly consistent. I say that despite the fact that I joined my political party at the age of 13—they allowed me to join earlier. However, I have always been opposed to lowering the voting age.
	There are two objections to this amendment. One is its inclusion in this Bill. Any amendment to do with the voting age should be in national legislation, not specific to a particular part of the United Kingdom. The second is more substantive on the arguments. I notice that, in moving it, the noble Lord, Lord Livsey of Talgarth, did not even present any, which suggests that his party may have lost heart in the case for votes at 16. I shall immodestly assume that that is because of my persuasive arguments on the Electoral Administration Bill, but let me knock the noble Lord's arguments on the head anyway.
	We are normally told that 16 year-olds can get married, join the Army and pay income tax. That in itself is misleading. You cannot marry at 16 unless you have parental consent; if you join the Armed Forces, you are not sent to the front line; and hardly any 16 year-olds pay income tax. In any event, there is a distinction to be drawn between where we allow 16 year-olds to do certain things and lowering the voting age to 16. In many areas where people are allowed to do things at 16, you are empowering not 16 year-olds but those who can select 16 year-olds to do particular tasks. These things cannot be exercised by all 16 year-olds; they are empowering other people. You can join the Army at 16, but you must be selected to do so, widening the pool available to the Army in making that choice. If 16 year-olds are going to be given the power to join boards of companies, again, the companies are being empowered, not so much the 16 year-olds. There is a filtering mechanism, rather than allowing 16 year-olds to exercise a power directly.
	There is also a distinction to be drawn between lowering the voting age and lowering the age at which one can stand for election to public office. If you are going to lower an age, lower the age at which you can stand for election, for the reason I have just given: you are not empowering 16 year-olds, you are empowering the electors. It is then up to them to choose whoever they wish. There is a crucial distinction there.
	I am not persuaded that a compelling case has been made for lowering the voting age. It is not standard practice elsewhere. I know the argument is that it would encourage 16 year-olds to get more involved. I go round and speak to sixth forms; they are very interested in politics. The problem is that we must address those who are not in the sixth forms, and this is not going to encourage them. We must get them interested in the first place, and just opening up the voting system will not do that in itself. We must look at other routes for achieving it. I am not persuaded that there is a case for lowering the voting age, and it is completely inappropriate in the context of this Bill.

Baroness Gale: I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, that this is not the correct Bill to lower the voting age to 16. I cannot see how we could have different voting ages in different parts of the United Kingdom, and I am not sure whether the noble Lord, Lord Livsey of Talgarth, means voting at 16 just for the Welsh Assembly elections, or for all elections in Wales: local government, parliamentary and European.
	The noble Lord said that the provision would encourage 16 year-olds to get more involved in politics and be more interested in voting. I am not too sure about that. I am not sure how many 18 year-olds vote. If we had 16 year-olds voting in Wales, there could be an even lower percentage of the electorate voting if they did not take up the right to vote. If we suggest that 16 year-olds should get the vote, we should have a UK consultation—not just a Welsh one—for it. We need a much bigger discussion than simply slotting this amendment into the Bill. For that reason, I oppose the amendment.

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: I am sure that noble Lords will appreciate that the Government do not regard this Bill as an appropriate vehicle for a reduction of the voting age. That has been said before, and will come as absolutely no surprise. The noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, made this point and we agree with him, although we do not necessarily agree with a number of other things he said.
	The issue was recently debated in another place as a result of an amendment to the Electoral Administration Bill. More than 100 MPs from across the party divide have signed an Early-Day Motion calling for a lowering of the voting age. In addition, the Government welcome the recommendations of the Power inquiry, and its contribution to the debate on democracy in Britain. Careful consideration will be given to the report and its findings. We welcome the debate created by the report concerning the reduction of the voting age. The noble Lord, Lord Livsey of Talgarth, says that this amendment is important, and we agree. The Government, in the context of our wish to boost voter registration and participation in the electoral process, are keeping the matter under active consideration.
	Noble Lords are absolutely right that we should look at ways of increasing turnout and political engagement among young people. It is a myth to suggest that they are not interested in politics. Although levels of turnout may be low among young people, surveys consistently indicate that they are passionately interested in a wide range of issues, from the environment to animal welfare. It is vitally important that we look for ways to reconnect young people to the political process and tackle the shockingly low turnout among young people at elections. Votes at 16 are one possible way of achieving that, and it is absolutely right that we have a public debate about the subject.
	Although arguments have sometimes been made in favour of a different minimum voting age for different elections, we have always approached matters such as this on a consistent basis across the UK. Nevertheless, we remain open-minded about the proposal for votes at 16, and will continue to listen to arguments such as those made today.
	While I agree with the sentiments of Amendment No. 25—to ensure that both Assembly government and Assembly staff are disqualified from being Assembly Members—it is not necessary. Assembly government staff are civil servants, so are disqualified from being Assembly Members by virtue of Clause 16(1)(a). Assembly staff—those who serve the Assembly, and who are employed by the Assembly Commission—are disqualified by virtue of subsection (1)(e).
	With the benefit of these explanations, I hope that the noble Lord will be able to withdraw the amendment.

Lord Livsey of Talgarth: I thank the Minister for that response and I thank noble Lords who participated in this short debate. I understand the view of the noble Lord, Lord Norton, on this. He does not see the need for empowering 16 year-olds. However, that runs counter to, for example, the government policy of teaching citizenship in our schools. That assists young people to become more mature about the society in which they live and about the responsibilities of living in a democracy and exercising the freedom of choice through the ballot box. Very often between the ages of 16 and 18, other things take over and young people's interest in politics, particularly among those who leave school at 16, wanes.
	I was interested in the response of the noble Baroness, Lady Gale. I see no reason why Wales could not take the lead as far as the voting age is concerned. She was an ardent supporter of the creation of the Children's Commissioner and of the Commissioner for Older People in Wales. Those are two firsts for Wales and the position is different from that in the rest of the United Kingdom. I see no reason why the lowering of the voting age to 16 should not occur. I am sure that some of us will remember that although we were entitled to vote at a certain age, there was not an election for four years so we did not exercise our vote and had to wait for it. Many of us could vote at 21 but some of us had to wait until we were 25 to vote. There is a delay that needs to be taken into account.
	I thank the Minister for his response, in which he said that the Government are listening on this issue and trying to grapple with the issue of low turnout at elections. We see this amendment as one way of reversing that trend. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 24 not moved.]
	Clause 12 agreed to.
	Clauses 13 to 15 agreed to.
	Clause 16 [Disqualification from being Assembly member]:
	[Amendment No. 25 not moved.]
	Clause 16 agreed to.
	Clauses 17 to 24 agreed to.
	Clause 25 [Presiding Officer etc.]:

Lord Livsey of Talgarth: moved Amendment No. 26:
	Page 15, line 28, at end insert "an acting presiding officer.
	(1A) The Assembly must, within 28 days following a general election, elect from among the Assembly Members-"

Lord Livsey of Talgarth: There is a situation in the Bill that we would like to clarify. We wish to ensure that within 28 days following a general election we should elect a presiding officer, referred to in the Bill as a presiding officer, and a deputy presiding officer, referred to in the Bill as a deputy presiding officer. Within those 28 days there may be an acting situation, but there is clearly business to be done immediately following a general election. This ensures that the elections of the presiding officer, the deputy presiding officer and the First Minister take place on the same day. Because of the relative size of the Assembly, decisions about who will be the presiding officer, the deputy presiding officer and the First Minister are inextricably linked. The dynamic they represent is important because the balance of power in the Assembly is so narrow. As a result, it makes sense to elect them simultaneously. That is an important point.
	Amendment No. 27 is grouped with Amendment No. 26. It adds,
	"different political groups both of which are political groups without an executive role".
	In fact, the presiding officer should not have an executive role or stand for election in that situation. The addition ensures that the opposite will not happen. The presiding officer and the deputy are not exclusively from opposition parties so this amendment ensures that there is fair representation across the board. It is just that they are not part of the government. That means that they cannot perpetuate the position that we have at present where the minority party has both non-voting positions locked up by the opposition, helping them to have a majority. There are two important points in respect of choosing the presiding officer and the deputy in these amendments. I beg to move.

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: I shall first speak to Amendment No. 26, standing in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Livsey of Talgarth, Lord Thomas of Gresford and Lord Roberts of Llandudno. Clause 25 requires the Assembly to elect a presiding officer and deputy presiding officer at its first meeting following a Welsh general election. The amendment changes that provision into a requirement to elect an acting presiding officer. It then requires the Assembly to elect its presiding officer and deputy at a later meeting, within 28 days following the election.
	The Government are sympathetic to the concern that, on occasion, it may not prove possible to reach broad agreement between the political groups in the Assembly on who should be nominated for these positions in time for the first meeting. However, the clause already allows the Assembly, in effect, to elect an acting presiding officer and deputy. Those officers could then either resign or be removed from office by the Assembly, if necessary, once agreement had been reached on the final nominations for those positions.
	The amendment is therefore unnecessary and there is no need to place an obligation on the Assembly to hold two presiding officer elections within the space of four weeks following the general election, even if it is able to reach an early consensus on the appointments. It would also leave the Assembly without a deputy presiding officer until the second election was held.
	I now turn to Amendment No. 27. In the Government's view, this amendment is also unnecessary. Clause 25 does not prevent either the presiding officer or the deputy presiding officer belonging to a party in government and the other to a party in opposition. That is also the position under the Government of Wales Act 1998 and the current Standing Orders. Clause 25 provides that the governing party or parties cannot also occupy the roles of both presiding officer and deputy presiding officer, as that could lead to charges that the office was not entirely independent.
	However, at the current Assembly's request, the flexibility of changing this rule by a two-thirds vote was added. These provisions carry forward what is in the Government of Wales Act 1998, but in addition they recognise the possibility of an administration being formed from more than one party. Clause 25(7) contains provisions designed to ensure that the responsibilities of being presiding officer and deputy presiding officer do not all fall to one political group, or to political groups from which Ministers have been appointed, unless the Assembly resolves otherwise under Clause 25(9).
	This amendment would also place an additional restriction on the political groups from which the presiding officer and deputy presiding officer could be elected. If the amendment were accepted, if the presiding officer belonged to a political group in opposition in the Assembly, the deputy would have to belong to a political group in government, or vice versa, unless the Assembly resolved otherwise. Of course, another consequence of a member being elected to the role of presiding officer or deputy presiding officer is that they may not be able to vote in proceedings. I understand the concern that the governing party or parties should not be able to deprive the opposition of two votes in this way while not losing any on their side. However, I hope I have explained clearly that it is already possible to avoid this situation under the clause. I hope that noble Lords will be satisfied with my explanation and assurances that the provision provides the flexibility that I think we all believe is necessary.

Lord Livsey of Talgarth: I thank the Minister for a very detailed reply indeed. I shall study it, verify what I believe he has said and see whether I can accept it in its entirety. Without more ado, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 27 not moved.]
	Clause 25 agreed to.
	Clause 26 agreed to.

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: I beg to move that the House do now resume, and I suggest that the Committee does not begin again before 8.32 pm.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
	House resumed.

Deepcut Barracks

Lord Ashley of Stoke: rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what action they propose to take about the deaths of soldiers at Deepcut Barracks in light of the report by Mr Nicholas Blake QC.
	My Lords, I have no doubt that many fine soldiers have emerged from the Princess Royal Barracks, but I think it is unlikely that the name Deepcut will become one of the great legends of the British Army. The grave allegations that have been made and the tragic loss of young, enthusiastic lives have cast a dark and no doubt long-lasting shadow over Deepcut Barracks, and they have not yet been investigated to the satisfaction of the bereaved families. My noble friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Ministry of Defence has dealt with these disastrous developments with great care and great skill, but I must tell him that he and his colleagues are committing a serious error of judgment in refusing a judicial public inquiry. But I hope to persuade them to change their minds.
	The Ministry of Defence is now assuring us that it is implacably opposed to bullying. That is fine, but that assurance is strikingly similar to the one given to me in the House of Commons nearly 20 years ago when, in 1988, I ran a national campaign against Army bullying. The Minister responded to me all those years ago by saying:
	"Bullying is a serious offence . . . it forms no part of proper service life and we are clear that it cannot be tolerated".
	Those fine words are echoed today. Yet look at what happened at Deepcut. If the Ministry of Defence had been implacably opposed to bullying and was vigilant, these tragedies may never have happened. Nicholas Blake has said that the soldiers were not bullied to death. Oh? But in chapters 7 and 8 of his report, he describes clear evidence of physical and verbal abuse which must have deeply affected many soldiers at Deepcut. One can understand the misgivings of bereaved families and their anxiety to discover the truth. The central issue now is whether, as the Ministry of Defence has suggested, we "move on" or, as the bereaved families insist, hold a judicial public inquiry into the tragic deaths at Deepcut. The Ministry has said that the families cannot have a veto on this issue. But equally, the wishes of the families cannot be dismissed. They are, after all, the greatest losers in this business. Any attempt by the Ministry of Defence to force closure would give the impression of an irresistible force meeting an immovable object. We do not want that collision; we want amicable agreement on a judicial public inquiry.
	The families are not alone. They are supported by the All-Party Group on Army Deaths and the organisation Deepcut & Beyond. I am secretary of the all-party group, and we keep in close touch with the families concerned. I can assure the House that there is no doubt about their commitment to the proposal for a judicial public inquiry, so any idea that we now "move on" is a pious hope, and one that is hopelessly impractical. The issue will never go away until we have the inquiry. These tragic developments are too serious to leave a major question mark hanging over the deaths and allegations for ever. The Government have stated their belief that the Blake review puts the matter to rest. It does no such thing. The Blake review lacked the full powers of a judicial public inquiry; it failed to be awarded those powers. It had no powers of subpoena, its scope was too narrow, and its proceedings were not held in public as a judicial public inquiry would be. The families believe, and so do many of us who support them, that the only way we can really find out what happened is by judicial public inquiry.
	The Government's objections to a judicial public inquiry are distinctly unimpressive. They claim that it is "not required". It is not required by whom? On the contrary, it is required—indeed, essentially so—by the families and their many supporters in and out of Parliament. The Government also claim that a judicial public inquiry could be costly, but it is wrong to quibble about cost where death, truth and justice are concerned. Another weak government excuse is that a public inquiry would prolong the matter, but it would not prolong it half as long as the families' campaign will. The families have been campaigning for four years now and can easily manage another four. At least the time spent on a judicial public inquiry would be limited, whereas the families' campaign could be unlimited.
	At the inquest on Private James Collinson, the Surrey coroner said that the Ministry of Defence has nothing to fear from an inquiry held in public. If that is the case, we should have one. But if it does have something to fear, we should certainly have one. Either way, logic, justice and fairness point indisputably to the need for a judicial public inquiry. It is time for the Army, the Ministry of Defence and the Government to admit it and get on with it.
	Finally, I suggested to the Prime Minister 19 years ago on 2 November 1987 that there should be an Army ombudsman. At that time, the Army's reputation was threatened by proven brutality, bullying and vicious sexual initiation rites, and I thought that an independent ombudsman was the best way of transforming the Army ethos and of restoring its reputation. But, inevitably, the Ministry of Defence objected. Now the Minister in the House of Commons, Adam Ingram, warns that we should not conclude that there will be an ombudsman. Such a crab-like, cautious approach to a truly independent figure fails to match the urgency of the need, and I hope that the Ministry of Defence will now honour the dead, honour the families and honour itself by agreeing to a judicial public inquiry.

Viscount Slim: My Lords, it is pretty daunting for the Army when something like the Deepcut story happens. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Ashley of Stoke, for bringing the subject back to your Lordships' House. I have seldom read a review or a report of such depth and undertaken with such care and thoroughness as that of Nicholas Blake. He really has tried to find out why there are four or five dead soldiers. Of course, the Deepcut situation over the four or five years was not a very happy one. People were hanging about waiting for trade training, there was a moving population, boredom, little or no stimulation from the authorities and a lack of sufficient junior officers and NCOs. I read somewhere that there were 500 personnel, two officers, three sergeants and four or five corporals. That is not the way to train people or to hold them and keep their enthusiasm while they are waiting to go elsewhere.
	The worse aspect I felt about that was the lack of trained instructors, officers and NCOs and the lack of supervision during off-duty time. Not much initiative was shown for continuing training. These chaps were soldiers; they were meant to be soldiers; they were half-trained, quarter-trained and some of them nearly trained. Even within the confines of the camp there are so many things that one could take forward in the way of training. Soldiers work at night. There was no sign of night training and no sign of physical fitness and keeping the chaps ready for their operations when they eventually got there.
	Frankly, there was a complete lack of leadership at times. That is very disturbing. I was also disturbed about how the shootings were investigated. There seems to have been a very weak effort as regards forensics and ballistics, fingerprinting and blood sampling—all the usual things. Documents apparently were lost, reports were lost and not recovered, and there was definitely muddle and tension between the various investigating agencies. I must say that at one stage I certainly felt a suspicion of a cover up.
	Perhaps I may speak as a very old soldier and quite out of date—we never let a man go on sentry duty until he was properly trained and had been with either an officer, an NCO or a trained soldier. For some of these chaps the only darkness they have seen is the semi-darkness of a disco. Out at night with a terrorist threat in varying degrees, particularly at the time of 9/11, it seems extraordinary to me that the teaching of how to be a sentry was just reading something by the orderly warrant officer every night and then a sergeant shoving chaps off in various directions. It is an art to be a good sentry and an alert sentry. That was lacking. After all, we depend on the Royal Logistic Corps for so much in the Army. The Army would not work without it and it requires an up-to-date, very with it, Royal Logistic Corps.
	I am worried about the way the parents were treated. I am particularly worried where an officer went off to tell a father and mother that their boy was dead and he did not tell the mother, who was all alone, but waited for the father to come in from work. I cannot understand why someone could not have got the father there first. There are ways of doing this. We have all had to go and tell a wife, a mother or a father that their boy was dead and there are ways to do that. I am unhappy by reading quite a bit in the review about that.
	I think that perhaps now—I do not disagree with the thrust of what the noble Lord, Lord Ashley of Stoke, said—this review does end the matter, but I do not see it bringing a great deal of comfort to the parents. It has taken too long. It has taken years to do something about four or five soldiers that could have been done in a much shorter time. I think that those concerned should not be very pleased with the way things have worked out. But I hope that in a little way this review brings some comfort. At least Mr Blake has tried to get to the bottom of everything.
	However, there is something missing. I cannot put my finger on it; other noble Lords may be able to do so. I just do not understand a number of things— where the bullets went and how they got there. I do not understand and I am horrified at the way the sentries were briefed and not trained. As I said to the Minister when we first raised this point, from top to bottom, where were the officers?

Earl Attlee: My Lords, I remind the House of my peripheral interest. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ashley of Stoke, for giving us such an early opportunity to debate this report. The House will be grateful to Mr Blake for his excellent report. It answers many of my questions but it also alerts me to some very serious problems. Most importantly, it allays my worst fears because we were all worried that something simply ghastly was going on in respect of the deaths. I simply did not know the answer. I can say that I know numerous RLC officers and junior soldiers. I have served with them as a junior soldier, so I know them very well. If there was something really awful to report, I am sure they would have told me; and they never did. I never heard anything close to the lurid accusations that we have read about in the media, and I listened very intently.
	However, the report is very detailed. I think that perhaps it could have been written a bit more succinctly so that more would read the whole report. Of course, listening to the noble Viscount, Lord Slim, it is quite clear that he has read the report from cover to cover. I read it over the Recess. Given that the usual channels agreed to such an early UQ, has the Minister read the report?
	All noble Lords should be grateful for Mr Blake's analysis of all the available evidence. He really seems to understand the military realities of operating such a large base. I have a little concern about the report's excessive reliance on standing orders from high-level headquarters. He frequently refers to Land standing orders. I confess I have never read all the Land standing orders. When I was in command I never even read the district standing orders. No one does. The noble Viscount is smiling at me because he knows that I am right. The reality is that no one reads all the reports or all the orders. If you want them all read and complied with, or at least for people to try to comply with them all, you would need to employ a captain at every single unit to be a compliance officer.
	In 1998, as an officer commanding a TA company, one document I studied very carefully, because if the worst happened I would not have the opportunity to study it in time, was the casualty procedure—a point referred to by the noble Viscount. But I am not completely confident about Fiona Murphy's analysis of that procedure in Annex C. I am not fully convinced that she researched her conclusions. For instance, she queries why the casualty procedure is a classified document marked "Restricted". If she had asked any officer, he would have explained that "Restricted" is the lowest security classification possible. The workshop manual for a Land Rover is graded "Restricted". "Restricted" really means "don't give the whole document to the media". It seems to me that she did not arrange for a sanity check by an experienced retired officer, but I also think that she does not understand the challenges of casualty notification. Any casualty notification system needs to be able to deal with at least 1,000 casualties in one day, but, at the same time, the next of kin needs to be notified within about two hours of the casualty occurring. In addition, the notifying officers need to be course-trained. You cannot use any officer; they must know what they are doing because it is such a sensitive task.
	Bad news travels very fast today, but I was surprised when, a few months ago, it appeared that a next of kin was notified of a casualty at 3 am. That was completely contrary to the casualty report system that I read in 1998, but the procedure has been updated. This had been made necessary by modern communications equipment, particularly the mobile phone and the internet. I know some casualty notification officers very well indeed. My information is that the casualty procedure system is fit for purpose, and that the Minister has no problems there.
	However, Fiona Murphy's work uncovers an inexplicable and glaring failure. That is the apparent total lack of interest on the part of the commanding officers and other officers at Deepcut in the feelings of the families. It is no surprise that they began to suspect that something sinister may have happened. I certainly do not understand why each family was not invited to Deepcut at an early opportunity. I am sure that if the families had seen and sensed how upset the whole garrison would have been after each event, they might not so easily have become convinced that something had gone very wrong. I wish that Mr Blake had perhaps used his skill and looked a bit closer at why those visits did not occur. Perhaps somebody made a decision that the families were not to be invited to the garrison; perhaps orders were given that that could not happen.
	Clearly, as we have all read in the report, something has gone very wrong. The report referred to sub-standard warrant officers who had been reduced to the rank. It stated that the Deepcut training regiment was, and perhaps still is, under-resourced in accommodation and manpower. We read about the lack of secure accommodation for female soldiers. Worst of all, we read about some—though they were only a minority—exceptionally poor-quality junior officers. I have never heard of an officer receiving a confidential report that was so damning. I think that the brigadier wrote, "I have absolutely no confidence in this officer at all". If I received a confidential report like that, I would say, "Well, boss, when do you want me to go?"
	The other serious problem that was identified in the report was the very poor police investigation—the noble Viscount talked about that. In the early cases, the Surrey police and the Royal Military Police did not know who had primacy in the investigation. The noble Lord called for a public inquiry, but there is no further evidence to be gained because all the documents have been destroyed under routine processes. I am shocked by how little ballistic work was done on the early casualties.
	The good news, if there is any, is that the report states quite clearly that all the deaths were self-inflicted and that bullying or anything worse was not a factor. However, there should not be a public inquiry for the reasons that Mr Blake so cogently laid out. Mr Blake made numerous recommendations, but I have not been able to give them direct attention because it is too early. However, your Lordships will shortly be working on the Armed Forces Bill. The Bill is highly desirable—we have been asking for it for many years. While it will certainly pass well before the State Opening, I know that many noble Lords will take a keen interest in it and that numerous amendments will certainly be derived from this report.
	Those young soldiers will not have died in vain. We will not sweep under the carpet the problems identified in the report and I am sure that all involved, whether in this House or in the Armed Forces, will do everything they can to eliminate or at least reduce this dreadful problem.

Lord Garden: My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Ashley of Stoke, for this debate. It gives your Lordships an early opportunity to return to the findings of the Blake review of the tragic deaths of four young soldiers at Deepcut Barracks. We heard the Statement just before the Recess. Your Lordships posed many questions to the Minister as a result of what was a first skim of the report. I do not doubt that we will return to each of the 34 recommendations time and time again as we try to ensure that the Government do not kick them into the long grass because of MoD resource or culture factors. The questions that I asked after the Statement was made remain to be answered, and I reiterate my view that we have no business training child soldiers if we compromise their safety on the altar of the defence budget. Is today's announcement by the Minister's colleague Don Touhig that agency status is to be removed from the three service training establishments a first result of the Blake review or is it entirely separate?
	Noble Lords have raised the particular circumstances of the deaths at Deepcut, and it is clear that the families of those who died must be given access to all the available information, as the review recommends. I shall not add to what I said when this matter was last raised; that is, that I would support the Blake review's conclusion that a public inquiry is not needed provided that the recommendations are implemented in full, speedily and with enthusiasm by the Government.
	I shall focus on the wider issue of what the report reveals about the state of our Armed Forces. It is not the only evidence that we have. The latest Armed Forces pay review body report tells a similar story of the difficulty of allocating sufficient resources to personnel issues given the problems of the defence budget.
	These problems are not new, nor are they confined to the period in which the current Government have been in power. Decisions made more than a decade ago are still producing problems today. So in making these observations, I am not looking to allocate blame, but to express concern about how the Armed Forces are becoming progressively more vulnerable to events such as those at Deepcut. The Blake review explains in some detail how the Army put in hand a study, by Lieutenant Colonel Haes, to examine the supervisory ratios at training establishments. The pressures of contractorisation, giving priority to the frontline and general undermanning led to the reductions in the availability of sufficient good supervisors at training establishments.
	The Haes report stated:
	"The dilemma is that military staff are being reduced at a time when the Duty of Care and Supervision needs of trainees appear to be increasing; a credibility gap is opening up".
	Blake stated in his report that this was flatly rejected by the Army and he quoted its response:
	"In the current climate of undermanning and operational overstretch, it is self-evident that there is no possibility of achieving enhancements to the manning liability without compensating reductions and gapping of posts elsewhere. In short the study"—
	Blake was referring to the Haes report—
	"has usefully highlighted a number of areas concerned but has not provided a practical solution".
	I shall not rehearse the other reviews, internal or external, which have tried to push the MoD into spending adequate amounts of money on the personnel area. Accommodation standards are a continuing disgrace. The newly trumpeted PFI project sets a target of 2016 to complete improvements. We shall find that all those Blake recommendations, which have resource implications, will have to fight for their place in the defence programme against the demands of the equipment and operational areas.
	Recommendation 26—the need for a military ombudsman—is the key recommendation of the Blake review, which the noble Lord, Lord Ashley of Stoke, mentioned. In my response to the Statement, I highlighted this recommendation. My full, in-depth reading of the Blake review has confirmed my support for this important proposal. We should remember that this is not the first time that such a proposal has been made. Independent representation was proposed by Sir Michael Bett in his Independent Review of the Armed Forces' Manpower, Career and Remuneration Structures, published in 1995. That report, in much easier operational times than now, found that 66 per cent of service men and women were in favour of some form of independent representation outside the chain of command. I would be interested to know from the Minister whether there has been a subsequent internal survey in the past decade to determine whether that level of support for some form of independent ombudsman or system is still there or is greater than it was in 1995.
	An independent voice in redress procedures has been raised in the context of the Armed Forces Bill. The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, has pointed out that we will want to come back to those recommendations when we deal with the Bill. I was delighted to see that the discussion that the Armed Forces Bill Select Committee had on 30 March 2006 was on an amendment that would have established an independent Armed Forces federation.
	There is a growing call for the military to enjoy some of the rights that other citizens take for granted. At every stage the MoD resists allowing the Armed Forces a right to express concern outside the chain of command. This is not acceptable at this stage. The United States and Australia are among the many nations which welcome such independent arrangements. Since the advent of the new budgetary systems to the way defence works, every commanding officer is put in the position of managing a small business. While trying to manage his budget, he acts, at the same time, as the voice of concern for subordinates, which becomes ever more difficult.
	The Blake review has got it right when it states in Chapter 12.98 that,
	"this Review believes that the present proposals in the Armed Forces Bill do not go far enough to ensure independent supervision and review of the discipline and complaints system. There is a danger that an historic opportunity will be lost for the Armed Forces to obtain independent assistance to achieve the goals they have set themselves to ensure the welfare of trainees and soldiers is effectively addressed".
	The following paragraph states:
	"It will be difficult for the Armed Forces to satisfy the public that they have nothing to hide in the running of their discipline and complaints system if there is a perception of unwillingness to accept meaningful independent oversight, which is increasingly seen as a necessary counterweight to the powers and prerogatives of military life".
	I trust that the Minister is in a position to tell us more of what the Government intend to do in following the recommendations in the Blake review and, in particular, whether they intend to follow the example of other countries and seek to establish a military ombudsman with, at minimum, the functions described by Blake in the Armed Forces Bill. We shall certainly expect to discuss that when the Bill comes to the House and also the associated but separate question of whether wider representation is needed through some form of Armed Forces federation. It is essential that the balance of resource allocation which the Ministry of Defence makes is redressed now towards the people who serve their country in the Armed Forces.

Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Ashley of Stoke, for giving the House the opportunity to debate the Blake report again. As we consider its conclusions, our thoughts and sympathy go out to the families of those young recruits who died at the Deepcut Barracks. As the noble Viscount, Lord Slim, and my noble friend Lord Attlee said, I would like to compliment Mr Nicholas Blake and the review team for the scope and detail of the report.
	As I said in my response to the Statement last month, we on these Benches agree with the review's conclusion that there is no value in holding a public inquiry, provided, as the noble Lord, Lord Garden, said, the recommendations are carried out fully and quickly. The review indicates that,
	"no new reliable evidence as to how the four trainees met their deaths is likely to be available".
	We hope that the Army, and Ministers, are now concentrating on learning lessons from those tragic circumstances and are putting into practice the constructive suggestions that the review has made to ensure that events like these will never take place again. It is not for us to dictate to the Army what to do, but it is for them to tell us, through Ministers, what they are doing. That must include sufficient detail to show that they are progressing with improvements and not letting them slide as new priorities emerge. I would particularly highlight the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Garden, about the accommodation standards being a disgrace. I welcome the Minister's commitment to report back to the House with periodic updates on the progress that is being made.
	A fine balance is required in military training. We ask our soldiers to put themselves into hostile and very dangerous situations. Their training must therefore be robust and rigorous. But the Army, rightly, has a duty of care for each individual under its command. If that duty of care is to be successful, there must be sufficient numbers of qualified supervisory personnel. The noble Viscount, Lord Slim, mentioned the complete lack of junior officers and NCOs. The Blake review is particularly critical of the levels of supervision at Deepcut, which in some cases were as low as 1:60. In a Westminster Hall debate on 27 April 2004, the Secretary of State announced a further 179 instructors and a supervisory ratio target of 1:38 in all phase 1 and phase 2 training establishments. Will the Minister confirm that this target of 1:38 has been met? As the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, and the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, said in response to the Statement, this training is best achieved through effective leadership and good man management. Whatever institutional changes are made, significant improvements will result from employing high standards of leadership, based on integrity, pride and espirit de corps.
	To encourage future recruits, they and their families need to be confident that the British Army can deliver a culture of nurture and training which is free from bullying and harassment. For that, proper supervision is crucial. As the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, said, bullying is a serious offence. I compliment the noble Lord on his excellent and vigorous campaign to stamp out bullying in the Army.
	The review makes a number of recommendations relating to recruitment. What practical steps are being considered to increase involvement of parents in the recruitment process? What practical considerations are the Government giving to the recommendation regarding medical records being made readily available prior to a recruitment decision?
	A significant number of recruits are vulnerable individuals who come to the Army from difficult and unstable backgrounds. Faced with the rigours of military training, they require a robust support mechanism from the chain of command. Any apparent evidence of self-harm or abuse must be quickly recognised by officers and dealt with. The review also rightly recommends ending the practice of armed guard duty being used as a punishment for recruits who have not completed training with firearms. This point was well made by the noble Viscount, Lord Slim.
	What improvements are being made to the ongoing of training for instructors to better equip them to recognise and address issues that arise among trainees from difficult backgrounds? Following the conviction of Leslie Skinner, what improvements have been made to the vetting procedure for instructors? What implications will the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Bill have on the vetting of instructors? There are clear shortcomings in the training structure, as illustrated by the report of the House of Commons Defence Committee on duty of care published last year. Recruits are passing out of phase 1 training without the necessary preparation to attempt phase 2. These soldiers then await trade training in limbo. Can the Minister tell the House how much he believes that an indeterminate length of phase 2 training contributes to recruit dissatisfaction?
	The noble Viscount, Lord Slim, and my noble friend Lord Attlee both mentioned the Royal Military Police. The review raises some important questions regarding the tasking, training, equipping and reporting methods of the Royal Military Police, and clearly there is scope to improve the quality and breadth of RMP investigations, particularly those involving abuse, self-harm and sexual offences. What consideration are the Government giving to the improvement of investigative best practice and ensuring that the RMP are sufficiently resourced to carry out complex investigations?
	This has been a very useful debate, and as my noble friend Lord Attlee said, I very much hope that these soldiers will not have died in vain.

Lord Drayson: My Lords, I am deeply grateful for all the contributions made this evening, and I thank in particular my noble friend Lord Ashley of Stoke for securing the debate. I recognise his deep interest and concern, as well as his long-standing commitment to many of these matters, not least bullying in the Army. I should like to state that the concerns that have been raised in the debate, which were brought into sharp focus as a result of the Blake review, have led to an equal focus in the Ministry of Defence—at ministerial level and, as the noble Viscount, Lord Slim, said, from the top to the bottom—to make absolutely sure that all the matters that have come to light as a result of Deepcut are addressed.
	As I said in my Statement on 29 March this year repeating the announcement made in another place on the publication of the Deepcut review, we are grateful to Nicholas Blake QC for conducting such a thorough review into the circumstances surrounding the deaths of the four young soldiers at Deepcut, and I join noble Lords in expressing our deep condolences to the families of the soldiers. We are satisfied that the report represents an independent, objective and comprehensive analysis of all the matters relevant to the four deaths, including the wider issues that have been highlighted as a result. The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, asked whether I had read the report: I read it from cover to cover before coming to the House to make the Statement. I have to say to the noble Earl that I was shocked by it.
	The noble Viscount, Lord Slim, raised particular concerns that emerge from the report, in particular about some of the details relating to the evidence that was provided to Blake. In part, the detailed work undertaken by Blake has led to a real commitment in the Ministry of Defence to addressing the issues. I assure the noble Lord, Lord Garden, and all noble Lords that the issues will not be kicked into the long grass. In response to the noble Lord, Lord Astor, I can say that I have already made a commitment to come back to the House to make regular reports. We will do that on a regular basis, and we are committed to ensuring that lessons are learnt and that these people have not died in vain. We as Ministers will make sure that that happens.
	I am sure that noble Lords will understand that there is a limit to what I can say tonight, given the relatively short time since the Blake report was published. What I can say is that we are looking closely and with real urgency at all the recommendations and considering how they can best be implemented and how to do so without reducing the effectiveness of our necessarily robust and challenging military training environment.
	The noble Lord, Lord Garden, and other noble Lords raised the issue of resourcing, focusing particularly on accommodation. We have been doing a significant amount of work on that in the Ministry of Defence, and we continue to do so. But the noble Lord is right to focus on this fundamental resource matter. It is about making sure that we strike the right balance when putting resources in place to support our people in the Ministry of Defence. The Blake review clearly raises issues that focus on whether or not that is being done. When we are in a position to do so, we will of course publish our response to the Deepcut review in full.
	Noble Lords will be aware that the Armed Forces Bill will shortly come before the House, and some of the issues raised by Mr Blake touch on the provisions of that legislation. We shall ensure that the Government's response is available to the House to assist it in its consideration of the Bill. I said in answer to questions raised following the Statement of 29 March that we would come back to the House with our responses to the recommendations shortly, in a few months. That we intend to do.
	My noble friend Lord Ashley of Stoke has repeated the view that he expressed on 29 March that a public inquiry is the only real way to find out exactly what happened. He went on to say that he believed that, after suffering so much, the families were entitled to such an inquiry. However, noble Lords will be aware that the review concluded that a public inquiry was not necessary. It saw no reason to believe that avenues of investigation were outstanding or that new, relevant information relating to the deaths could now come to light. The Defence Committee of the other place came to a similar conclusion. We share those views and, given the extensive investigations that have taken place, see no public or service interest in pursuing that approach. However, I have noted the strong views expressed by my noble friend, and I will ensure that they are brought to the attention of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State.
	Mr Blake recognised that one important reason underlining the calls by the families for a public inquiry was that, in the cases of Sean Benton, Geoff Gray and Cheryl James, they had not seen the material relating to their child's death that had come to light since the original inquests. Mr Blake therefore recommended that Surrey Police should provide them with copies of their reports and witness statements solely for the purpose of considering whether an application should be made to the High Court to set aside the previous inquest. I understand that Mr Blake has written to Surrey Police on the matter and provided a copy of his report. The Ministry of Defence would of course co-operate fully in any such process.
	I turn now to some of Mr Blake's recommendations. We welcome his conclusion that young people with suitable qualities for a military career should continue to be able to enlist at 16. Half of those who enter initial Army training are under 18. They are vital to the Army, but it is also important to acknowledge what the Army offers them. Mr Blake states that for many young people, including those who otherwise may not have an opportunity to lead structured and fulfilling lives, the Armed Forces offer broad opportunities for the acquisition of new skills and career development that schools and colleges may not. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Garden, and others have said, we recognise the special obligations that that places on us with regard to those young people, and commanding officers are well aware of the specific welfare needs of recruits and trainees under the age of 18.
	We recognise the vital role that parents play in support of their children, both before and after they have joined the Armed Forces. Our recruiting officers make every effort to establish and sustain links with the parents or guardians of those who have applied to join the Armed Forces, and commanding officers are required to write to parents or guardians on the arrival of recruits under 18, explaining how they can contact the unit if they have any concerns that they wish to raise and providing information on the training that their son or daughter will undertake. Parents' days are held during courses, and parents are encouraged to attend the final passing-out ceremony.
	We recognise the importance of instructors at service training establishments and already have work in hand to develop a "train the trainer" package, which includes modules on the care and welfare of trainees. The first courses began last November. A new staff leadership school is due to be opened at Pirbright in 2007, where all Army instructors will be trained. The noble Lord, Lord Astor of Hever, has asked specifically about the progress that we are making in putting in place actions in response to the recommendations. This gives some examples of actions that we have been taking, but we recognise that there are areas where it is urgent for us to respond to the 34 recommendations set out in the Blake review.
	Mr Blake concludes that there is no evidence that the four young soldiers were bullied to death at Deepcut but finds that some personnel there—perhaps only a small minority—experienced some form of harassment, discrimination or oppressive behaviour. That is unacceptable. We must address it as a matter of urgency. My noble friend has rightly stated that he has brought up the issue many times with the Ministry of Defence. It is incumbent on us as Ministers to do everything that we can to root out harassment and bullying in our Armed Forces. It is not a problem unique to the Armed Forces in this country; none the less we must do everything in our power to eliminate it.
	At every stage of the training it is made clear to trainees that the Armed Forces do not tolerate any form of bullying and harassment. All service personnel are informed of the means by which they can bring any allegations of such conduct to the attention of the appropriate authority to be properly investigated. Recruits are issued with a training covenant card, encouraging them to report bullying and harassment and clearly setting out how a recruit should behave and how they can expect to be treated. We are looking at how we can best ensure that our personnel have the confidence to raise a grievance and the confidence that it will be dealt with quickly, effectively and fairly.
	We have proposed improvements to our complaints system under the Armed Forces Bill. The proposal to establish a commissioner of military complaints will rightly and properly be debated at that time. I will write to fully inform the noble Lord, Lord Garden, on the latest position on the internal surveys that we have carried out.

Lord Maclennan of Rogart: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. I think that the whole House will understand that, for resource reasons, the Government are not in a position to give a detailed response to many of the 34 detailed recommendations of the Blake report. It will also understand his view that the issue of an independent source of inquiry to a commissioner would be debated at the time when legislation might be possible. But is there any reason why a government cannot give their considered view now on the issue of principle? It seems that the internal mechanisms to which the Minister referred have not been sufficient. We need some indication of the Government's thinking before legislation is brought forward.

Lord Drayson: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord and recognise his concern. We have committed to responding to the recommendations, including the ones that he mentioned, within months—we intend to do so within two months. It is important that, when we respond to these matters of deep importance, we have confidence that the implementation plans that we have put in place will be effective. I am therefore sure that the House will recognise our need to ensure that we respond in a way that can clearly demonstrate that the implementation is effective, given that many of the issues are not just matters of principle but of resourcing.
	The principal reason for our current position—boards of inquiry are not open to the public, the press or family members unless they are called as witnesses—is that a public hearing or one at which family members were entitled to be present, could inhibit the provision of full and frank evidence from witnesses and therefore prevent the board of inquiry achieving its primary aims: to learn lessons and prevent any similar incidents. A board of inquiry is not an inquest and cannot serve the same purpose. However, as Mr Blake has made recommendations concerning boards of inquiry, we will of course examine them and respond fully in due course.
	The noble Lord, Lord Garden, asked whether the announcement today on the agencies was related to a response to Deepcut. I understand that it is not; it is a separate matter, not related to any response to the recommendations of the Blake review.
	As I said on 29 March, the review, alongside the other inquiries and inquests into the deaths at Deepcut, sets out with great clarity the circumstances of the four deaths and the context in which they occurred. We now need to move on and take forward the changes required. We welcome the opportunity to address Mr Blake's recommendations. I will write to noble Lords if I have failed to cover any points raised in the debate.

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8.32 pm.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
	[The Sitting was suspended from 8.28 to 8.32 pm.]

Government of Wales Bill

House again in Committee.
	Clause 27 [Assembly Commission]:

Lord Livsey of Talgarth: moved Amendment No. 28:
	Page 17, line 12, at end insert "not belonging to the same political group"

Lord Livsey of Talgarth: Clause 27 has involved in it a simple principle, which is that we do not want people belonging to the same political group. This amendment concerns the Assembly Commission and its constitution of members of different political persuasions, and provides a fair representation on the Assembly Commission itself. It is a principle of representation which we regard as extremely important as it provides a proper balance.
	What is more important in one way, as far as this debate is concerned, is Amendment No. 32. The reasons for the changes we wish to make to this amendment will become apparent in a minute. On page 18, at line 9, we wish to leave out subsections (2) to (9) and insert:
	"(2) The members of any committee established by the Assembly under section 28(1)—
	(a) shall be elected by the Assembly from among the Assembly members, and
	(b) shall, unless that committee exists solely to provide advice, be elected so as to secure that, as far as is practicable, the balance of the parties in the Assembly is reflected in the membership of the committee".
	That is a principle that we here at Westminster adhere to pretty strongly in committees of both Houses and it reflects the results of voting in elections, so there is membership of committees that follows that pattern.
	Proposed new subsection (3) in the amendment states:
	"(3) The committees established by the Assembly under section 28(1) shall be, as far as is practicable, chaired by members of political parties in proportion to the number of members of the Assembly belonging to each party".
	The effect of this is to remove the d'Hondt process of allocation from establishing the chair of the political parties involved in the Assembly Commission. The d'Hondt method is unsatisfactory and was abandoned by West Germany in 1970. It was also abandoned in its use by the Scottish Parliament because it was thought that there was not a fair representation.
	I want to quote a few things in this debate. It was the intention of the Presiding Officer of the Assembly—the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas—to be here today, but unfortunately he had to go to a funeral of a relatively young man who he knew well in Bala. He is sad not to be able to make representations about this part of the Bill. He is fully in support of the content of the Bill, with one exception—Clause 29, with which he is in total disagreement. It is the only part of the Bill that he feels strongly about.
	We are informed in the Explanatory Notes that the clause is intended to lay down a formula for use in:
	"The allocation of seats on committees between different political groups . . . according to a d'Hondt formula . . . which is . . . used . . . to determine the allocation of electoral region seats in the Assembly for each region".
	It is also used in,
	"section 29 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 to allocate committee chairs and deputy chairs".
	There is no doubt that this clause has been included to give a built-in advantage to the majority party in the National Assembly. Well, we can argue about that. D'Hondt invariably gives a disproportionate advantage to the majority party in contrast to the Sainte-Lague divisor rule, for instance. I am not going to go into all the niceties of all these formulas and formulations, but by abandoning the d'Hondt principle a fairer result would occur if the Assembly itself made the decision on securing a proper balance.
	On Second Reading, noble Lords expressed concern about Clause 29 and its impact on the working of the National Assembly. Members from all parts of the House stated their opposition to this clause, including the noble Lords, Lord Crickhowell and Lord Henley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay. In his closing remarks, the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham, misunderstood the nature of the impact of Clause 29. He said:
	"The principle behind it is that there needs to be a formula that guarantees in relatively small Assemblies with relatively small committees"—
	and that surely applies in the case of the National Assembly—
	"that there is appropriate representation for minorities".—[Official Report, 22/3/06; col. 326-27.]
	That is not the case with this clause; if it were so, I would have no quarrel with it.
	On many aspects of this Bill, the Government have said in effect that details with regard to scrutiny, legislative competence and much of the working of the Bill in relation to the Assembly should be determined by the Assembly through its Standing Orders. It is believed that this is the right approach and that there is opposition to prescribing the arrangements for the composition of the Assembly's committees beyond that. The right approach to adopt is the very simple Scottish arrangement in which the composition of the committees is based on a very straightforward clause in the Scotland Act, which states that the composition and membership of the Parliament's committees should,
	"have due regard to the balance of parties within the Parliament".
	Those are issues that exercise the Presiding Officer of the National Assembly.
	The noble Lord's views are backed up by the House of Lords Select Committee on the Constitution, which points out that there is no comparable provision in the Scotland Act. The situation in Scotland in allocating shares is totally different from what is proposed in the Bill. The report states on the basis of the evidence presented to the committee that Clause 29 might be thought an inappropriate incursion into matters that should be left for the Assembly itself to decide. That is actually a judgment that that committee made. All these matters are exercised by Members of the Assembly and their concerns are such.
	An Assembly research paper states that there are only 45 Members to service all the Assembly's committees, and at present it has 16 committees. The Assembly research paper states that on the basis of the Assembly's political balance, a six-man committee would comprise four Labour members and one each from Plaid Cymru and the Conservatives. A seven-member committee would see the addition of a Liberal Democrat member and an eight-member committee would have four Labour members, two Plaid Cymru members, one Conservative and one Liberal Democrat.
	I have made the point; although there are other points that should be made, time is not on our side. Basically, Amendment No. 32 would remove the d'Hondt principle and ensure a fair allocation of committee members for each party, and the distribution of committee chairs would be fairly distributed based on the results of the composition of the Assembly, which is of course related to the elections for the Assembly. I beg to move.

Lord Henley: I have my name down to Amendment No. 29, together with my noble friends Lord Roberts of Conwy and Lord Crickhowell, as well as Amendment No. 31 and the opposition to the Question that Clause 29 stand part of the Bill.
	There are two separate issues here. There are Amendments Nos. 28 and 29, to which the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, spoke first. We have a very similar amendment to that in the name of the three Liberal Democrat Peers, and I do not think that anything really stands between our two amendments. They relate to the commission and how it should belong to as many different political parties as possible.
	I move on to the more important amendments that we have tabled, which relate to Clause 29 and the composition of committees. We believe—which is why we are opposing the Question that Clause 29 stand part—as a matter of principle that it would be best left to the Assembly itself to decide how it, or the Parliament or the Senedd or whatever it is going to be called, should put its committees together. If, after all, we are devolving matters, it should be a matter for its Members to decide. However, if that is not acceptable to the Government, we have the alternative in our Amendment No. 31, which in effect deletes most of Clause 29 but thereafter simply says:
	"The standing orders shall include provision for ensuring that in apportioning members to committees and sub-committees regard is had to the balance of political parties represented in the Assembly".
	That is not the prescriptive approach that the Government are recommending in their lengthy Clause 29, which, as the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, has pointed out, brings in d'Hondt in determining exactly how those committees shall be set out. I would like to quote again some of the figures that he quoted. I got them from a research paper produced by the Assembly, but is important to quote them because I would like confirmation from the Government now or possibly later, but preferably now so that it is in Hansard, that they accept those figures put forward by the Welsh Assembly. They underline the unfairness of using d'Hondt with committees, particularly of a small size, but for that matter of virtually any size, because it produces arbitrary results.
	I appreciate that the size of the committee is important because we have a relatively small Assembly and the Government want to keep it to something of the order of 60 members. One has to take out a number of people—the Ministers, leaders of the different political groups, the Presiding Officer and others—which reduces the number available for the relatively large number of committees, and there is a limit on how many committees individual Assembly Members, or whatever they will in future be called, can serve. But as the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, pointed out from the figures provided by the Assembly briefing paper, if we have a committee of six we have—on the current composition of the Assembly—four from the Labour Party, one from Plaid Cymru, one from the Conservative Party and no others. That in effect gives 66 per cent of the committee to the Labour group.
	With a committee of seven, we have the same figures except that we have a Liberal Democrat creeping in. When we get up to 10 we have something that is arguably the fairest of all, but a committee the size of 10 might impose great burdens on an Assembly of only 60. With 10 we have five Labour members, two from Plaid Cymru, two Conservatives and one Liberal Democrat, but no others. That reduces the Labour percentage to 50 per cent but it still gives it half the committee even though it has only 48.3 per cent of the total Assembly. As one increases the size of the committee even further to 12, which would be extremely difficult, we have seven Labour members, two from Plaid Cymru, two from the Conservative Party, one Liberal Democrat and no others, which again perversely increases the Labour percentage on that committee to 58.3 per cent—an excellent majority of the committee for a party that does not have an overall majority in the Assembly. I give these figures because it is important that the Government have them and can comment on them.
	No doubt the noble Lord will tell us that if we turn to Clause 29(8) and (9), we are told that the Assembly will have the power to disapply subsections (2) to (7) to the committee and use some other system. But once one looks at the fine print of those subsections one discovers that it can disapply that only if it is passed on a vote with at least two-thirds of Assembly Members voting in support. That seems to give the Labour minority group a comfortable blocking vote to prevent any changes that might reduce its numbers on the committees, whether those committees are numbered six, seven, eight, nine, 10 or even 12. I do not see it wanting to vote to disapply subsections (2) to (7) if its members think that it will reduce their powers on the committee. Therefore, if the Government feel that some guidance has to be given to the Assembly on the composition of the committees, we hope that it is simpler and fairer than what is proposed in Clause 29.
	I await with interest the noble Lord's answer. I do not suppose that we—obviously, I cannot speak for the Liberal Democrats—would necessarily want to divide at this stage, but it is certainly a matter to which we shall want to return at a later stage. However, we would like confirmation tonight from the Government that the figures we have both quoted from the Assembly are correct and would stand up to the appropriate test if d'Hondt was used to set up the relevant committees.

Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: I wish to speak briefly to these amendments. At Second Reading I expressed grave concern about the d'Hondt formula, and that still stands. There seems to be a choice here. If I had to choose one amendment, I would plump for Amendment No. 32, which would make the system a little more open to the public in Wales regarding how people become elected Members. It also recognises the reality of a committee; namely, that the chair has enormous influence on the way it works and, indeed, carries a huge amount of responsibility in the process.
	I too have gone through the document—I assume that it is the same document—and looked at the different ratios and formulae for the size of the committees, and my reservations about d'Hondt were reinforced. I agree with the statement made tonight that there is a principle here that if we are giving powers to the Assembly, it has to be able to determine the details of its workings itself. However, we need to provide some checks and balances in the system. Hence we cannot just say, "The committee is set up as and whenever". Both Amendments Nos. 31 and 32 have a degree of checks and balances by this Parliament regarding the Assembly to ensure that there is representation as determined by the voters at the time that they elected the Assembly Members.

Lord Crickhowell: I apologise for not being in my place at the beginning of the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Livsey. I intervene briefly as I spoke earlier about the importance of this clause and referred to the remarks of the Select Committee on the Constitution, which suggested that it was an inappropriate incursion into matters that should be left to the Assembly to determine for itself.
	I have reread the extensive debate in the committee on the Bill in the Assembly. It was one of the longest and most detailed debates that it had on any of these clauses. One thing becomes quite clear—if you put in wording like this that dictates structures, you create a straitjacket and start inhibiting the freedom of the Assembly to deal with the real world and the practical problems that it faces as it sets up different committees in different situations. That fact emerges again and again in the speeches that were made. Basically, the Members were saying, "Even the wording we had in the previous Act caused us difficulties and prevented us doing sensible things". This wording is going to be much worse. What is more, it is no good saying that you can get out of it by using the escape mechanism; the reality is that that will be quite difficult. I note that when they voted on this amendment, all the political parties voted against it, except the Labour Party, which dutifully voted in support of it. Again, the casting vote of the Presiding Officer decided the issue.
	Therefore, we should take note not only of the views of the Constitution Committee of this House, but of the practical experience over the past few years of the Welsh Assembly itself. It is a bizarre situation to which we keep coming back again and again; namely, that we are setting up this Assembly and saying that it is capable of running the affairs of Wales—many people argue that it should have greater powers—and yet here we are sitting in this Parliament and telling it how it should constitute its committees. That seems to me, frankly, foolish and offensive. I will not go along with it and will do my best to remove these absurd inhibitions and restrictions on its freedom.

Lord Davies of Oldham: I am grateful to all the noble Lords who have spoken in the debate, which we all recognise has its technical difficulties. First, Amendments Nos. 28 and 29 insert a requirement that the Standing Orders of the Assembly specify that the members of the commission, other than the presiding officer, should not belong to the same political group. We do not think that this statutory constraint on the Standing Orders for the Assembly is needed. The existing Government of Wales Act has been criticised for placing too many limits on the Assembly. We made clear in the White Paper Better Governance for Wales that the Assembly would be given as much freedom as possible—I will come in a moment to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, with regard to the formula—to make its own decisions about how it will work. This is what this Bill delivers. It is for the Assembly to decide whether it wishes to ensure that the members of the commission all belong to different political groups. I do not think that this House should seek to make the decision for the Assembly by placing the requirement on the face of the Bill, which is what Amendments Nos. 28 and 29 would do.
	The noble Lord, Lord Henley, emphasised that Amendments Nos. 31 and 32 were of particular concern to him. These amendments seek to remove the d'Hondt formula from Clause 29, which deals with the composition of Assembly committees, and they seek to replace it with new requirements.
	I share with the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, sorrow that the Presiding Officer, the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, is not with us this evening. We would have benefited from his contribution to this debate, although whether I would have agreed with every word is a different matter altogether. We all understand the reasons why he cannot be present.
	I think that there was a not-so-explicit undertone in what the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, said, and in the other contributions as well, that this Bill dictates to the Assembly. It does no such thing; that is not what Clause 29 is about. It is about providing a fallback position—it is the obligation of this Government to be able to ensure that all difficulties are resolved—if in fact the Assembly does not resolve the issues itself. As I understand it from the remarks that have been made so far, contributors to this debate in this House agree that it is vital that committees of the new House are politically balanced, as they obviously play a crucial role in the scrutiny of legislation. The aim is for the political parties in the Assembly to reach agreement on the size and makeup of committees. That is the express purpose behind Clause 29. It is not to undermine the concept that the Assembly does not have the power to reach decisions on its committees of its own volition. It can do so. Clause 29 provides a stable, clear and—as all noble Lords will recognise—an internationally used formula for calculating the political balance on committees, should this not prove to be possible. Clause 29 is merely a fallback formula against the presumption that the Assembly reaches its own decisions. But noble Lords have, this evening, identified that there may be difficulties. That is why the Government have the fallback position in Clause 29. The noble Lord, Lord Henley, identified problems that occur with any size of committee. Both the main illustrations used were committees of six and seven; the present Assembly has no committee below eight. As noble Lords will recognise, the greater the number, the easier it is to be fair with regard to the allocation. It is certainly easier to be fair in ensuring that everyone is represented. If one uses any formula, once you get to 10, 11 or more members of a committee, there will always be the problem that there will be percentage mathematical weights according to the numbers. We all recognise that inevitable consequence of the numbers game, which none of us can avoid.

Lord Henley: The noble Lord says that the larger the number the greater the fairness, but as I understand it once one gets up to 11 or 12, one is back into the situation where one is giving the Labour Party, as things now stand, a good working majority on each committee.

Lord Davies of Oldham: Of course that is inevitably the case, but at the same time the noble Lord will recognise that if there is a committee of 12, we can guarantee that however large the number of parties in the Assembly they will all get their voice. That is a crucial issue of fairness. The noble Lord will recognise that there is no way in which the mind of man can get round the problem of getting equalities of percentages out of very low numbers; it cannot be done. So the d'Hondt principle is simply a formula that gets as close as possible to the appropriate levels of fairness. I say that against the background that we are not trying to impose d'Hondt on the Assembly. The Assembly may well be able resolve the issues with regard to its committees.
	The big difference between the Assembly and this House and the other place is that when one is talking about the percentages that ought to be on the committees from the parties represented, we are talking about much larger numbers. The committees of this House and of the other place are much larger than the committees that are likely to obtain in the Assembly. I recognise that there are reservations about the d'Hondt formula as an intrusion of some alien concept. But we need a fallback position where in legislation the Assembly has a clear ability to resolve a problem, if it proves to be intractable, through agreement, although there is no reason to expect that, with good will on all sides and with the Assembly being concerned to get a degree of fairness with regard to committees. Noble Lords may say, "That sounds like a very strange Assembly to us", but on the whole that is not the case with this House, or even with the rather more contentious other place with regard to committees. Of course, chairmanships are debated, but on the whole the other place does not have large problems with the appropriate representation of the parties on the committees. Our problem here is that we are dealing with very small numbers. There is no way around that issue.

Lord Henley: If the noble Lord uses the expression, "We are not trying to impose d'Hondt on the Assembly", why on earth do the Government have Clause 29 (2) to (7)? The noble Lord said very clearly, "We are not trying to impose it". It strikes me that the Government are trying to impose it, because it is jolly difficult under those subsections to remove it after the Government have imposed it.

Lord Davies of Oldham: The answer to the noble Lord is quite straightforward—or perhaps the question to the noble Lord is pretty obvious. If we do not have any formula in the legislation on how to get past deadlock in circumstances where the National Assembly produces close results and deadlock occurs, what is the consequence? Effectively, the National Assembly would not be in a position to resolve the composition of committees, because there would be no framework in which they would operate where they did not obtain agreement.
	It might be said, "So be it. Let deadlock reign". But the reason that the Assembly is very different from the two Houses of our national Parliament is, first, that it is smaller and, therefore, the problems with regard to committees are more acute; and, secondly, that because it is smaller there is the issue of close votes. As we know in the other place, close election results produce issues with regard to numbers on committees but nothing like the potential that obtains here. That is why the Government believe that of course the Assembly makes its decisions; and if it forms its committees according to agreement across the Assembly, which would have to be voted upon, the issue is resolved and Clause 29 is not significant as regards the aspects which relate to the d'Hondt formula. The formula is there against the eventuality of deadlock. I do not see why that is an intrusion upon the Assembly.

Lord Thomas of Gresford: If using the d'Hondt system is a fall back, why do not the Government set out primarily that the numbers of a committee and its make up are to be determined by agreement, and that in the event of disagreement the formula is to apply? In the six and half years that the Assembly has been going, has there been deadlock on the formation of committees? If there has not, why do we have a new provision? What is motivating it? If there has been no deadlock or problem, the only reason for introducing a formula which gives an advantage to the Labour Party is for Labour Party interests.

Lord Crickhowell: I am provoked into intervening again. It is an issue to which we shall almost certainly have to return at a later stage. The Minister was at his most plausible and most misleading. We have to put some counterpoints on the record. This was not in the original White Paper. It was brought in later. The Government thought suddenly that they needed to take some action. One wonders why.
	As Nick Bourne argued in Committee:
	"It is not a fall-back procedure; it is the procedure that applies unless something else is done. It is not a fall-back, and to try to characterise it as such is deeply misleading".
	He also said during the debate in the Assembly:
	"Do you seriously think that the statutory provisions do not hamper people, and that you will not be fettered by a statutory provision? Of course we will be hampered by statutory provisions. That is what statutes do—they introduce laws by which you are bound. This law will hamper us in the next Assembly, and it will, in all probability, unless something unforeseen happens, give an advantage to the largest party which, let us face it, is likely to be the Labour Party, in terms of committee membership".
	That is what it is all about. I find it quite extraordinary, and rather insulting, that the Government should take the view that we in this House are perfectly able to work out our assembly structures without any form of dictation, legislative or otherwise, but that the Assembly will be incapable of doing so. I see no grounds for accepting the Minister's argument that there will be deadlock and that the Assembly is incapable of resolving these issues. I have much greater confidence in the Assembly than clearly the Minister has. Because he seems to doubt its capacity to reach sensible decisions without dictation, I hope that we shall return to the issue in a strong way at a later stage.

Lord Davies of Oldham: I emphasise that it is not dictation. It does not dictate to the Assembly. If the Assembly can reach agreement on its committees, the d'Hondt formula in Clause 29 does not come into play. We are not being prescriptive through the legislation. The Assembly gets on with it, save that there are guarantees that all political parties are represented. That does not seem to be a constraint on the Assembly. That seems to be the adumbration of the fairness principle to which all would subscribe.
	More appropriately, both noble Lords should not call into question the Government's good faith in putting this clause in to deal with a problem should it arise, but they should ask, "Why have you not expressed it somewhat differently from this and why is it not clearer that it is a fallback position?".

Lord Henley: Quite simply, it is not a fallback position. Clause 29 is absolutely clear. This is what will happen unless—then one goes to subsections (8) and (9). The noble Lord cannot get away with saying that this is a purely voluntary system that comes into effect if they cannot agree. It comes into effect, and it is only if they subsequently agree with the majority of three-quarters of the whole Assembly that they can then delete the effect of d'Hondt.

Lord Davies of Oldham: No, I do not think that is the position. I am seeking to explain to the Committee why we cannot be more explicit that this is a fallback position. The answer is that it is quite difficult for us to do this in a way that would affect standing orders and the provision for the election of committees. If we were to identify this, in an explicit way, as a fallback position in the legislation, we would be interfering with the standing orders of the chamber because the fallback position would come into play when they had failed, according to their standing orders. It would mean that we would be more prescriptive: we would have to specify that this is how the standing orders should work and when they fail to provide an agreed result for the Assembly, this is the fallback position. That would be much more prescriptive. If we had done that, the noble Lord, Lord Henley, supported by his colleagues in the Committee, would have been quite apoplectic because it would have been legislation dictating the standing orders of an assembly and we are not doing that. It is clear that it is for the Assembly to reach its position on its own standing orders.

Lord Thomas of Gresford: I am struggling to grasp the position. Clause 28(3) states:
	"The standing orders must make provision about the membership, chairing and procedure of committees of the Assembly".
	That is what we are talking about. Turning to Clause 29, "Composition of committees", subsection (1) states:
	"The provision included in the standing orders in compliance with section 28(3) must meet the requirements of this section".
	It does not say that it can have its own requirements but if it cannot agree, you then put in the machinery of Clause 29(2) to (7). In other words, you have to apply subsections (2) to (7) unless, under subsection (8), you can get a two-thirds majority to disapply those subsections. So they are absolutely prescriptive of the membership of the committees. As I read it, there is no getting away from that.
	Putting it into practical terms, let us assume a 50 per cent Labour membership of the Assembly, as at the moment, and 50 per cent of the other parties. The Labour Party could insist on the machinery of subsections (2) to (7) applying and would never agree to waiving those provisions under subsection (8). They could maintain their position until at a subsequent election they lost their majority and there was a two-thirds majority in the other direction. So this is not a fallback position. This is prescriptive. It is telling the Assembly what to do.

Lord Crickhowell: I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way but, once again, the Explanatory Notes are helpful. They entirely support what he has just said:
	"This clause lays down certain rules about the membership of committees, designed to ensure that seats on committees are allocated to political groups in accordance with their overall representation in the Assembly . . . The allocation of seats on committees between different political groups must be made according to a d'Hondt formula",
	and so on. The Government are now in an extraordinary situation. They give us these notes on the Bill saying that this is what the clauses mean, and then their Ministers get up, time and time again, saying that they mean something quite different. It makes debate on this Bill pretty difficult.

Lord Davies of Oldham: I hope I am not contradicting what is in the Bill. I am seeking to explain why the concept is one in which the Assembly reaches a consensus on its committees—as, in fact, all parliamentary assemblies seek to do, and as we are well used to doing in this assembly. The problem with the amendments is that they take out the clause providing the fallback position if the Assembly does not reach such a consensus.
	Of course it is for the Government to defend the Bill, but it is for movers of amendments to say that they are concerned to improve the Bill, not wreck it. Let me be clear about these two amendments. I am sure noble Lords will recognise that we can all benefit from going away after this short debate and thinking further about the implications, and I hope I can persuade noble Lords to allow me to take part in that process. But the problem is that neither of the amendments solves the problem of disagreement in the Assembly at all. They simply say, "If deadlock occurs, so be it; it is nothing to do with the way the Assembly has been legislated for".
	The advocates of the amendments cannot criticise the Government's fallback position unless they state what is meant to happen in the event of deadlock—against a background in which we all recognise that the National Assembly for Wales could, over a period of time, so easily produce a result in which no single party is remotely arbiter of its destiny. The conflicting positions might reach deadlock. All the Government are saying is that we have an internationally agreed formula used by many legislatures to solve the problem of committees—which are always difficult in terms of main chamber representation—with the relatively small committees that the National Assembly of Wales will enjoy.
	I hope, on that basis, we will have at least cleared areas of disagreement between us. Perhaps the noble Lord will withdraw the amendment so that we can all think further.

Lord Henley: We have not cleared the air at all. We are even more confused than when we started. The Minister seems to tell us that the process offered to the Welsh Assembly—or whatever it might be called—is voluntary. Well, we all know how the Government define "voluntary", as we have discovered in dealing with identity cards. It is quite obviously not voluntary.
	Perhaps the Minister would be good enough to look carefully at everything he has said this evening about the voluntary nature of this and have a word with officials to see whether they can draft amendments to bring this clause into line with what he has said. What he said seems to be in complete disagreement with what we read in Clause 29 and what my noble friend Lord Crickhowell has dug out from the Explanatory Notes. Perhaps the Minister could then bring forward an amendment that we could look at on Report, which might improve this Bill. If he does not do that, I am sure that we, and our Liberal Democrat colleagues, will be bringing forward further amendments. However, I wait to see what the noble Lord, Lord Livsey of Talgarth, intends to do with this amendment tonight.

Lord Thomas of Gresford: The noble Lord suggested that in drafting our amendments we should put in a mechanism for resolving a dispute in the event of the Assembly being unable to agree. I do not think that that is right. As has been argued on this side of the Committee, it is for the Assembly to decide its procedures. Our amendment sets down principles within which its standing orders will operate. It provides a framework. Amendment No. 32 provides:
	"The Members . . . shall be elected by the Assembly . . . and shall, unless that committee exists solely to provide advice, be elected so as to secure that, as far as is practicable, the balance of the parties in the Assembly is reflected in the membership of the committee . . . The committees . . . shall be, as far as is practicable, chaired by members of political parties in proportion to the numbers of members of the Assembly belonging to each party".
	These are principles and, taking those principles, it is for the Assembly, in its standing orders, to set out how they are to operate. In the event of a dispute, it is for the Assembly to decide how it is to be resolved. In urging amendments to the Bill, and trying to improve it, as we are, we ought not to come out with some formula that puts the Assembly into a straitjacket—to use the word employed earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell—in setting out how it resolves its disputes. It is for it to do that, within these principles.

Lord Livsey of Talgarth: The lead amendment in this group is tabled in my name. There is no doubt that there is a fundamental disagreement between the two sides of the Committee on this situation. The Minister said that Clause 29 does not dictate. It does dictate the d'Hondt method. It is prescriptive. As the noble Lords, Lord Crickhowell and Lord Henley, and my noble friend Lord Thomas said, it does not allow the Assembly to achieve political balance. Clause 29 was said by the Minister to employ an internationally used formula. It is an internationally-used formula circa 1870 and was abandoned in West Germany in 1970. I shall refer to Scotland in a minute. The Assembly will have greater powers, particularly over Orders in Council. Surely the committees will become more important as time goes on. The Assembly is in favour of units of one Member, not part-Members or fractions of Members, in determining the membership of a committee. The Minister quoted the phrase "goodwill on all sides". There certainly needs to be.
	The first Standing Order of the Scottish Parliament states:
	"The membership of each committee shall be decided by the Parliament on a motion of the Parliamentary Bureau".
	In its first year, in 1999, the situation in the Scottish Parliament got very difficult. The then Parliament Minister Tom McCabe, MSP, stated:
	"We agreed to use the d'Hondt formula for the allocation of committee places. That formula would not provide any places for Messrs Canavan, Harper or Sheridan"—
	I am sure that those three names are well known to the Government Front Bench—
	"but the parties were determined to resist that. In a spirit of fairness, they were determined to find some formula that would allocate a place to each of those three members.
	The d'Hondt formula would have allocated six places on an 11-member committee to the Labour party. To Labour's credit, it immediately recognised that, as it does not have a majority in this chamber, it would not be fair for it to have six places".
	The Parliament amended the situation itself and the d'Hondt formula was not used after that. I think that was a very sensible way of proceeding in his party. So there is no doubt whatever that we will return to this matter. I hope that the Minister will think about it.

Lord Davies of Oldham: If the noble Lord will allow me, the Assembly clearly has the ability to reach an agreement outside the d'Hondt formula, so what he is quoting as desirable is already open to the Assembly. That is the whole point.

Lord Livsey of Talgarth: It is clear from what I have just quoted that it did not work in Scotland. I do not want to go back over that again, but the situation must be addressed again. I have no doubt that we on this side of the Committee will table amendments to try to resolve this problem, and I sincerely hope that the Minister will seriously consider what has been said here tonight, give it a lot of deep thought and perhaps propose something specific himself. In the meantime, it is my privilege to withdraw the amendment. I beg leave to withdraw.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 29 not moved.]
	Clause 27 agreed to.
	Schedule 2 [Assembly Commission]:

Lord Davies of Oldham: moved Amendment No. 30:
	Page 100, line 29, at end insert "but subject to any appropriate modifications"
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Schedule 2, as amended, agreed to.
	Clause 28 agreed to.
	Clause 29 [Composition of committees]:
	[Amendments Nos. 31 and 32 not moved.]
	Clause 29 agreed to.
	Clause 30 [Audit Committee]:

Baroness Noakes: moved Amendment No. 33:
	Page 19, line 18, leave out "Audit Committee or Pywllgor Archwilio" and insert "Accounts Committee or Pwyllgor Cyfrifon"

Baroness Noakes: In moving Amendment No. 33, I shall speak also to the six other amendments in the group, which stand in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Roberts of Conwy. I do not have a grasp of the Welsh language, unlike my noble friend and several other noble Lords, so, if I may, I shall deal with the amendments using only the English part of them. My noble friend assures me that the translation into Welsh is correct.
	The amendments would replace the title of the committee of the Assembly required by Clause 30. Clause 30 uses the term "Audit Committee", which my amendments would replace with "Accounts Committee". This might seem rather arcane. What is in a name? I argue that there is quite a lot in the name "audit committee", which is why it would be wise of the Government to ensure that there is no confusion about this committee. Noble Lords may expect me to start with audit committees in the private sector in particular, because that is where audit committees started life. But I shall start with audit committees as articulated by Her Majesty's Treasury in its 2003 audit committee handbook. The handbook deals with audit committees in central government, in executive agencies and NDPBs. The preamble to the handbook says:
	"The essence of the function of an audit committee in central government is to support the Accounting Officer (or Board) by monitoring and reviewing both the risk, control and governance processes which have been established in the organisation, and the associated assurance processes".
	It refers to the,
	"independent perspective and a process of constructive challenge . . . . to help them"—
	that is, the accounting officer or board—
	"to be fully assured that the most efficient, effective and economical risk, control and governance processes . . . are optimal".
	So it is clear that the audit committees that are now commonplace throughout central government and, indeed, NDPBs are part of the processes within which the departments and other bodies manage their finances, internal controls and so on.
	Things are a little different in the private sector. Listed companies look to the Combined Code on Corporate Governance, which sets out the basic requirement for them to have an audit committee. There are supporting guidelines specifically on audit committees, which are generally referred to as the Smith guidelines. The watch words in the Smith guidance are "oversight", "assessment" and "review" of the financial statements and the financial controls. The audit committee acts on behalf of the board in overseeing functions which are properly those of management. The core remit in the private sector is rather more narrowly drawn and focuses on financial statements and financial controls.
	With that background we come to the committee that is required by Clause 30, which is entitled "Audit Committee". To look at what that committee is expected to do we have to turn to Clause 142. The essence of the role of the committee is in subsection (1), which states:
	"The Audit Committee may consider, and lay before the Assembly a report on, any accounts, statement of accounts or report laid before the Assembly by . . . the Auditor General".
	Noble Lords will see that that function is quite unlike functions of audit committees that exist either in the public or private sector. Indeed, its remit is pretty much that which is carried out by the Public Accounts Committee in another place. Indeed, by virtue of subsection (2) the audit committee may, if the Public Accounts Committee requests it, take evidence from Welsh accounting officers on behalf of the Public Accounts Committee. It emphasises that the committee required by Clause 30 is the Welsh equivalent of the arrangements that exist in another place, as enshrined in the Public Accounts Committee.
	I believe that the language used by Clause 30 is, quite simply, confusing. It is clear that the work that the committee will be required to do is very like that of the Public Accounts Committee in another place, but it is quite unlike the kinds of audit committee that exist either in the public or private sector. It is not an advisory body or one that is supportive of an accounting officer as envisaged in the Treasury's handbook. Indeed, its work is to grill accounting officers on the basis of the Auditor General's reports. Accounting officers who have appeared before the Public Accounts Committee in another place have never described that process as supportive or advisory—and rightly so; nor is it an oversight body acting on behalf of a board, as envisaged in the private sector.
	I understand that the Auditor General has made these general points to the Assembly committee which examined the Government's White Paper Better Governance for Wales and that the committee agreed. I hope that the Government will not saddle the new Welsh Government arrangements with an unnecessarily confusing title for a key committee. My solution is to call the committee an accounts committee to line up with the terminology that is used in another place.
	Amendment No. 34 in the group, in the name of noble Lords on the Liberal Democrats Benches, takes a different approach, but I believe that our underlying aim is the same. I beg to move.

Lord Livsey of Talgarth: I speak to Amendment No. 34, which, as the noble Baroness just said, is slightly different in its wording as regards the audit committee. Our approach is to insert,
	"or any other name that the Assembly wishes to allow through its standing orders".
	In other words "Accounts Committee" could be one of the options for the name of the committee.
	We follow very much the contribution of the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, in saying that the Audit Committee has a role that is analogous to the Public Accounts Committee in another place. It certainly is best practice for both public and private sector bodies to have audit committees; but there is a fundamental difference in this case in that the Audit Committee is not an advisory body: it is there to hold public bodies to account. It would be helpful in clarifying the situation if the committee was not called the "Audit Committee" because it is firmly set in people's minds what its functions are. This is very much a body which examines and holds to account those who represent public bodies. We do not want any confusion in the public mind and in the Welsh public sector. The Auditor General made the same point to the Assembly committee which was set up to examine the White Paper, and the committee concurred with that view. Ministers should take serious account of the fact that the Auditor General has made the same point as we are making in these amendments.

Lord Crickhowell: I shall make a very brief point to round off the debate. Again, I turn to the Explanatory Notes. I find to my amusement and greater edification that they state:
	"Clause 29 provides a formula for ensuring political balance in the composition of committees. This will (unless disapplied by resolution supported by at least two-thirds of those voting) apply to the Audit Committee as to any other committee".
	So that is the fallback position. The formula is to apply; it is to apply in this case unless two-thirds of those voting decide that it is not to apply.

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: As we have heard, this group of amendments, spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, would re-name the Assembly's Audit Committee so that it would be known in future as the "Accounts Committee". The amendment tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Livsey of Talgarth, Lord Thomas of Gresford and Lord Roberts of Llandudno, would specify on the face of the Bill that the Assembly's Standing Orders could provide that the Audit Committee be known by a different name.
	I acknowledge that it is important that it is absolutely clear what the Audit Committee's role will be. Perhaps it would be useful if I put on record that its principal duty will be to scrutinise the Welsh Assembly Government's use of their financial resources and to hold Welsh Ministers to account for their financial transactions. I am sure that the Audit Committee will be active in communicating what its role and responsibilities are to the electorate, on whose behalf it will be acting.
	I know from my own experience, which is not as great as that of the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, but is still quite significant, that audit committees in the private sector will examine wider external issues. They do not confine themselves to examining internal governance and audit matters.
	If at some future date the Assembly were to have conferred on it the legislative competence to reform by Assembly Measure the name and functions of the Audit Committee, one option open to it would be to decide on a different name for the committee.
	As your Lordships will know, the general policy of the Bill is that the Assembly should be free to decide what committees it wants to establish. However, it requires the Assembly to have one particular committee, the Audit Committee, because of this committee's unique role.
	Since the Audit Committee was set up under the provisions of the Government of Wales Act 1998, it has carried out a number of audit-related functions. Other pieces of legislation, including the Care Standards Act 2000, have referred to the Audit Committee and allocated functions to it. It is therefore important to provide in the Bill that there should still be an Audit Committee so that it can seamlessly continue with its statutory work.
	The Government see no reason to depart from the current name, which was established in the 1998 Act and has been successfully operating ever since, especially as this would require the amendment of other legislation that has been enacted since 1998.
	The practical problem with providing that Standing Orders could change the name of the Audit Committee, as Amendment No. 34 would require, is that Standing Orders could not change the references to "the Audit Committee" of the Assembly contained in other pieces of legislation. However, we feel that it is not practical in the circumstances to authorise Standing Orders to change the name of this very important committee. There appears to be a fundamental disagreement. It is important that the committee should remain the audit committee. In the light of what I have said, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.

Baroness Noakes: I am extremely disappointed with the Minister's response. I thought that I had made out a convincing case that "Audit Committee" means something quite other than is intended to be used for this committee. I am grateful to the Minister for setting out what this Audit Committee will do. But, in setting that out, he underlined the fact that the work of the Audit Committee, under this Bill, will be different from pretty well any other audit committee that exists, other than the Audit Committee set up by the Government of Wales Act 1998. I am only sorry that I was not in your Lordships' House at the time that the 1998 Act went through.
	The Minister made no substantive case for keeping the term "audit committee", other than possibly the fact that other legislation has referred to "audit committee". We have a Bill before us. It would be very simple to get any legislative references that needed to be captured so that there was no discontinuity. I think that the Minister emphasised continuity in his defence for keeping the current term. I am sure that we could ensure that a reference in other Acts, such as the Care Standards Act, would properly ensure that those functions were transferred to the committee required under Clause 30.
	Given the late hour, this evening is not the time to pursue the detail further. I would just say to the noble Lord that on these Benches we found his arguments unconvincing and we shall want to return to the matter again on Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 34 to 37 not moved.]
	Clause 30 agreed to.
	Clause 31 [Standing orders]:

Lord Roberts of Conwy: moved Amendment No. 38:
	Page 20, line 23, at end insert "which shall be made in both English and Welsh"

Lord Roberts of Conwy: My amendments are an attempt to strengthen the position of the Welsh language under the Bill. I am glad to see that they are grouped with the new clause proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies. At Second Reading, the noble Lord expressed his concern about the recent treatment of the Welsh language and he has followed it up with his new clause. He is right to be concerned because the Welsh Language Board, established under the 1993 Act, is to be thrown on the bonfire of the quangos that the Assembly Government are to set alight very shortly. What will be left after the embers have cooled is very uncertain. It is that kind of uncertainty—that results from apparently precipitate and unconsidered action—which accounts for much of the distrust surrounding the current Assembly Government.
	The position of the language under the Bill is obscure, to say the least. Under Section 47 of the 1998 Act, there was a duty laid on the Assembly as a corporate body, with executive and legislative functions, to give effect in the conduct of its business to the principle that the two languages should be treated on a basis of equality. The Assembly was also to have regard to the spirit of any guidelines under Section 9 of the 1993 Act, and Standing Orders were to be produced in both languages.
	Now Section 47 is among the many from the 1998 Act that is to be repealed. As the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, has pointed out, its ghost in emaciated form reappears in Clause 35, which imposes an obligation on the new Assembly in the conduct of Assembly proceedings to give effect to the principle of treating the two languages on the basis of equality. But no reference is made to guidelines under the 1993 Act or to Standing Orders being produced in both languages. Clause 31, which deals entirely with Standing Orders, states that the Clerk must publish them from time to time, but no reference is made to languages.
	So there are many questions for the Government to answer about the differences between the old Section 47, which did provide protection for the language, and the lesser requirements and softer regime of new Clause 35, which links equality of language treatment with the totally different issue of equality of opportunity for all. Incidentally, equality of opportunity features among those special subjects like sustainable development that require Welsh Ministers to "pay special attention" to them. They have special clauses devoted to them, but no special clause is devoted to the protection of the Welsh language.
	The main purpose of the noble Lord's new clause is to elevate the language, and especially Ministers' treatment of it, to what I understand is the special status accorded to the matters highlighted in the category of clauses grouped under the description,
	"'Inclusive' approach to exercise of functions".
	What could be more deserving of such an approach than the Welsh language? The noble Lord expressed his concerns at Second Reading,
	"that the Bill does not place a duty on the Executive to promote the Welsh language in the governance of Wales".—[Official Report, 22/3/06; col. 295.]
	I shall go further and express my deep disappointment that the Bill seems to seize every conceivable opportunity to exonerate the Welsh Government in advance for any failure to discharge their responsibilities towards the language, hedged as they are with defensive qualifications like "appropriateness" and "practicality".
	My amendments seek to cast down the hedges erected by the Government and deprive the Executive of such facile opportunities to avoid their responsibilities. I certainly support the thrust of the noble Lord's new clause. Indeed, I shall seek to improve it if I can by the Report stage. I beg to move.

Lord Prys-Davies: I rise to speak in support of Amendment No. 53 in this group. I agree with almost every word uttered by the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy. He is an immense authority on the modern legal status of the Welsh language, he being the author of the expression, "treating both languages on the grounds of equality". The amendment addresses itself to the two significant issues which I raised at Second Reading. They are, first, the omission from the Bill of a duty by Welsh Ministers to treat the Welsh language on a basis of equality with the English language, and secondly, the equally significant omission of a duty on Ministers to promote and facilitate the use of the Welsh language in the good governance of Wales. The immediate effect of the first omission is significantly to weaken the present statutory infrastructure for the support of the Welsh language, which was created by the Welsh Language Act 1993 and the Government of Wales Act 1998. It is a backward step and therefore thoroughly unsatisfactory. The second omission denies the Welsh language the statutory support that the Government readily make available to other key areas of governance in Wales. Thus in Clause 73, Welsh Ministers are under a statutory duty,
	"to sustain and promote [Welsh] local government".
	Clause 74 creates a duty to promote the voluntary sector, and Clause 75,
	"to take account of the interests of business".
	Clause 78 imposes a duty,
	"to promote sustainable development".
	The Welsh language is also a vital element in the good governance of Wales. Its history goes back well beyond Magna Carta. It goes back to the creation of the Welsh nation itself. It is a part of the Welsh nation and can be said to be a part of the culture of Britain, yet a duty to support it is totally missing from the Bill. I suggest that a duty to support it is just as relevant, if not more relevant, if the language is to enjoy a realistic prospect of survival by the end of this century.
	I have a feeling, from what Ministers have said to me previously, that my noble friend on the Front Bench will once again not be reluctant to tell the Committee that the Assembly Government have consistently supported the Welsh language and they propose to adhere to that policy. But in reply, I cannot avoid saying, with deepest respect to my noble friend, that that would be a totally irrelevant argument, because the policy may change in the future, either due to a change of personalities or to a change of government. The fact remains that under the present Bill the Government are given a free hand to decide whether to promote the language. Can we accept that as right? I shall turn very briefly to the amendment. Subsection (1) is in line with Clause 73, relating to local government, or Clause 74 relating to the voluntary sector, or again to Clause78 relating to sustainable development. Subsection (1) refers to a "plan" instead of a scheme, but that is merely in order to avoid confusion with a Welsh language scheme.
	Subsection (2) is parallel to the duty of the legislature contained in Clause 35 and in Section 47 of the 1998 Act to which the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy, referred. Subsections (3) to (5) relate to reporting on the implementation of the plan and the scheme and an assessment of its effectiveness. They are not new. They are based on Clauses 77 and 78, being "Equality of opportunity" and "Sustainable development" respectively. I believe that the amendment will go some way in providing the statutory infrastructure for the Welsh language in the governance of Wales. Primary legislation will also be required to reform the substantial law itself, but that is for another day.
	I should add that the Welsh Language Board, which is the Government's own advisory body on the interests of the Welsh language and whose members are appointed by the Government, has agreed the wording of the amendment. I hope that the Members of the Committee will be able to support the amendment and that my noble friend Lord Evans on the Front Bench can be persuaded that the Government should think again about the merits of what is being proposed in the amendment.

Lord Roberts of Llandudno: We would of course give wholehearted support to the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies. At the same time, I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy, for all that he has done over the years when in office in support of the Welsh language. It has been seen in the revitalising of Welsh throughout Wales. The census in 2001 was the first for many years to show that more people than before were able to speak and write in Welsh. We thank all who contributed so substantially to that for what they have done: S4C—the independent television channel—and the Welsh language schools. We understand that, in the reorganisation of schools in Cardiff, the one shortage is of Welsh language education and that we are to be provided with more Welsh-medium schools in Cardiff. Substantial progress has been made, and so we pay tribute to all who have contributed towards that.
	I am sad to see the demise of Welsh Language Board, Bwrdd yr Iaith Gymraeg. It was an organisation that did a tremendous amount for the support of Welsh and the promotion of the Welsh language in Wales. It was an organisation—quango or not—that was at arm's length from the Assembly Government and because of that independence at least it was able to act in a way that was at times not entirely supportive of the views of the Assembly Government. We should pay tribute to work done by the Welsh Language Board, and possibly it would be worthwhile to save it at the last moment.
	We see in the present Welsh Assembly Government a lack of dynamism and commitment towards the expansion of Welsh. I hope that we have not come to the end of one type of progress where we are taking backwards steps rather than forward steps as the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, said. When we had co-operation in Cardiff and the two parties working together, the work of Mrs Jenny Randerson as the Minister involved deserved a great deal of appreciation. We seem to have lost policies such as the Welsh language action areas, which were instigated then and which could have done so much more to further the cause of Welsh. If we support the amendments tabled by the three parties and the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, I am sure that we can go forward with far more confidence that we have at present. It is our great pleasure to support the amendment.

Lord Crickhowell: I warmly support the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, and my noble friend Lord Roberts of Conwy, and echo what has just been said by the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Llandudno, about the Welsh Language Board. I share his doubts, as I said earlier, about it being absorbed within the Assembly, and this is a good example of why I have those doubts. I have a letter in front of me from the chairman of the board, urging us to support the language and giving reasons why we should do so. I wonder whether, if the circumstances were different and we were a little further down the road and debating the situation without the Welsh Language Board, we would have that independent voice making the demands that it reasonably makes for the changes.
	I, too, pay tribute to the Welsh Language Board for its work under successive chairmen since we set it up. Incidentally, the chairmen appointed in some cases by my noble friend Lord Roberts of Conwy and Conservative Secretaries of State could by no means be described as Conservatives. We appointed those whom we thought could make the best contribution to the future of the Welsh language, and we should express a debt of gratitude to the distinguished chairmen who have served and to the members of the Welsh Language Board during its existence.

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: I start by paying tribute to the work that the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy, has done over the years in promoting the Welsh language.
	Amendment No. 38 would insert a requirement for the Assembly's standing orders to be made in both English and Welsh. It is widely recognised that the Assembly has an excellent record of producing bilingual legislation. However, there have been moments when it has not been reasonably practicable to do so. For example, the Assembly's foot and mouth disease order describes several chemical tests which would not easily translate into Welsh. It would appear in that one case that the fact that it appears just in English is sufficient. Also, in 2005, the Assembly made a series of regulations regarding avian flu which were drafted in English only because of the severe time constraints imposed by decisions of the European Commission. It would have taken 20 days to translate, and then there was the possibility that urgent amendments might need to be made and those would have to be bilingual if the order was drafted in English and Welsh.
	The Bill at present provides, in paragraph 18 of Schedule 11, that both the standing orders made by the Secretary of State, and the Assembly's proposals as to what provisions they should include, must be made in both English and Welsh. Subsequent revisions will be a matter for the Assembly. There is no reason to expect that these will not be made bilingually. The current Assembly's standing orders are in both Welsh and English. Any resolution of the Assembly to remake or revise the standing orders must be approved by at least two-thirds of the Assembly members voting. Any changes that were not proposed bilingually would be unlikely to secure sufficient support to be made. Furthermore, Clause 35 places obligations on the Assembly to treat English and Welsh on a basis of equality in the conduct of its proceedings. In drafting the Bill, the Government's approach has been to give the Assembly as much freedom as possible to make its own decisions about how it will work. This issue can properly be left to the Assembly to handle without the need for provision in the Bill.
	Amendment No. 73 would oblige the Assembly to pass every Assembly measure in English and Welsh, with no exceptions. I realise that that would ensure that no measure could be passed in Welsh or in English alone, but that is unnecessarily restrictive. There are circumstances in which it would be desirable for the text of an Assembly measure to be in one language only. The Assembly may, for example, pass a measure that makes textual amendments to existing legislation. If the existing legislation is only in English, it is surely needless for the Assembly to provide Welsh translations of terms that would appear only in English in the enactment itself.
	I appreciate that some of the examples relate to statutory instruments rather than Assembly measures, but they illustrate the circumstances that can arise. In addition, there is a need for Assembly measures to make consequential amendments to other legislation that has been produced only in English, and that illustrates why it would not be sensible to require the text of every Assembly measure to be entirely bilingual. I should add in the light of the debate on that point in another place that Clause 97(5) will not prevent an Assembly measure from containing terms in languages in addition to Welsh and English, should that prove necessary.
	Amendment No. 90 attempts to prevent the Assembly from passing a Bill if the text contained terms in any language other than English and Welsh, with no discretion for standing orders to provide otherwise. As previously debated in relation to Clause 97, there are practical problems with requiring the Assembly to produce all Bills in English and Welsh. The amendment would place an unnecessary constraint on the Assembly's discretion to determine its own procedures. I hope that, with the benefit of those explanations, noble Lords will not move their amendments.
	Amendment No. 53 will place on Welsh Ministers a duty to have a Welsh language plan, setting out how they will promote the Welsh language in the exercise of their functions, and a Welsh language scheme, setting out how they will give effect to the principle that the English and Welsh languages should be treated equally. I appreciate—as I am sure that every noble Lord does—the sincerity and strength of the views of my noble friend Lord Prys-Davies. He is advocating that the Government should give a stronger statutory basis to what the Welsh Assembly Government do already—"securing the future", to use his phrase. The Welsh Assembly Government have already produced their action plan for a bilingual Wales, which aims to ensure that consideration of the Welsh language is at the heart of all their policies. They also have a Welsh language scheme, which is subject to the provisions of Section 21 of the Welsh Language Act 1993. For the past two years they have published a combined annual report on both the plan and the scheme.
	I assure the Committee that the Welsh Ministers will inherit the Welsh language scheme that applies to the current Welsh Assembly Government. The scheme will therefore continue to be subject to the provisions of Section 21 of the Welsh Language Act 1993. I acknowledge that the detail of how that will be achieved, in the light of the Assembly assuming the functions of the Welsh Language Board, will be set out in the order to be made by the Assembly under Section 28 of the Government of Wales Act 1998. However, the policy intention is clear. A Welsh Assembly Government consultation document on the merger of the Welsh Language Board with the Welsh Assembly Government was published on 6 April. It states the Assembly Government's intention to ensure that their Welsh language scheme is scrutinised independently and carries on as a statutory scheme. It sets out how the Assembly Government propose to ensure this, by retaining a residual body with statutory powers to scrutinise the Assembly Government's Welsh language scheme until the establishment of a statutory Dyfarnydd, which would take on that function.
	With regard to the idea of a Welsh language plan, the Government expect that the Welsh Ministers will also inherit from the Assembly the function of promoting and facilitating the use of the Welsh language. This will be a consequence of the Assembly assuming that function of the Welsh Language Board from April 2007. I appreciate that this is different from a duty to set out how they will promote and facilitate the use of the Welsh language in the exercise of their other functions. However, I maintain that a direct function of promoting and facilitating the use of the Welsh language will be an even stronger impetus for the Welsh Ministers to ensure that all their policies are consistent with this function. I feel confident therefore that the fundamental objectives of this amendment will be met, albeit by different means.
	It is for the Assembly to hold the Welsh Ministers to account for how well they carry out their functions in relation to the Welsh language. It will be open to the Assembly as a result of this Bill to seek the legislative competence to enable it to place further statutory requirements on the Welsh Ministers in relation to the Welsh Language should it wish to do so. This Government consider that it would be more in keeping with the underlying devolution policy underpinning this Bill for these matters to be determined by the Assembly itself in Cardiff.
	I am sure that we shall return to this very important issue as the Bill progresses through its various stages. I hope that in the light of the explanation I have given my noble friends will agree to consider further the content of the Welsh Assembly Government's recent consultation and that they will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

Lord Prys-Davies: I thank the noble Lords, Lord Crickhowell and Lord Roberts of Llandudno, for their support.
	However, I confess that the response of my noble friend was disappointing. He has spoken once again of tensions within the current government, but we are legislating for the future. My noble friend has failed to explain why a duty to promote the language is deemed to be unnecessary.
	Sadly, the Government intend to take over most of the functions of the statutory Welsh Language Board. I am bound to accept that one of the functions of the board is to promote and facilitate the use of Welsh, but the amendment is not in conflict with that function. It would reinforce the function and convert it into a duty.
	I do not propose to press my arguments any further this evening, but clearly this is an issue to which we will have to return at a later stage in the history of the Bill.

Lord Roberts of Conwy: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, for the words that he has just uttered; namely, that we shall return to this subject in later proceedings.
	The Minister must be aware of the profound concern that exists on all sides of the Committee. That concern arises from what we know has been happening in Wales and what is threatened to be the fate of the Welsh Language Board. We are fearful that the language will be left friendless, even in its home country of Wales. Noble Lords on all sides are most anxious to ensure that the language has the proper support and promotion that it has always deserved and, indeed, won from this Parliament. The impression that the language and the institutions serving it are under threat has been expressed this evening. I am most grateful to those who have given expression to the foreboding that we all have. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 31 agreed to.
	Clause 32 agreed to.

Lord Davies of Oldham: I beg to move that the House do now resume.

Moved accordingly, and on Question, Motion agreed to.
	House resumed.

HBOS Group Reorganisation Bill

Brought from the Commons, read a first time and referred to the Examiners.
	House adjourned at sixteen minutes past ten o'clock.
	Wednesday, 19 April 2006.